W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > August 2010

RE: Open Library and RDF

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:07:38 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5909591B21@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: <public-lld@w3.org>
Dan,

People in our community mistakenly believe that foaf:Person is
unsuitable for use because of foaf:geekcode and other such properties.
Specialized models, including library models, are completely arbitrary.
I encourage you to keep your model as simple and intuitive as possible
and encourage specialized communities to do this instead:

ex:Person a owl:Class ;
	owl:equivalentClass foaf:Person .

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 5:41 PM
> To: Dan Brickley
> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Open Library and RDF
> 
> Quoting Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:
> 
> 
> >
> > I would be absolutely delighted if the LLD group cared to help
refine
> > FOAF's person vocabulary to better support library, cultural
heritage
> > scenarios, eg. by adding a few new properties.
> 
> 
> It might be more than a few :-). I did a comparison of foaf/dc/rda/ol
> while working on the ol rdf for author:
> 
>    kcoyle.net/temp/comparePersonVocabs.pdf
> 
> The underlined ones were ones where I found what could be match on a
> property I needed for OL.
> 
> Some of the RDA elements could be considered administrative data, but
> there are still quite a number that are not covered in foaf. Also, the
> two "title" properties have significantly different definitions, so
> they may not be equivalent.
> 
> kc
> 
> >> Libraries shouldn't shy away from incomplete and imperfect
> conceptual
> >> models. Library school should have taught us all that objective
> reality
> >> is impossible. :-)
> >
> > Objective reality teaches us the same thing ;)
> >
> >> I can sympathize with two arguments against this POV: 1) the
> information
> >> is being maintained natively in RDF or 2) OL developers are being
> stingy
> >> with the URI patterns you've been allocated. I can think of
> solutions
> >> for the former. The fact that the URIs in your RDF aren't currently
> >> Linked Data suggests the latter.
> > [...]
> >> Let's do it both ways! Invite FOAF, VCard, SKOS, and other
> ontologies to
> >> the party. As we've discussed, though, I encourage you to avoid
> >> conflating rdf:types under a individual's URI.
> >
> > I don't quite understand that last point. One thing with these kinds
> > of computer languages is that their combination is somewhat out of
> the
> > control of their creators. If some thing is a person (in the sense
> > described in prose in http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person ) then
> > they just *are* a member of the class foaf:Person. Whether it is in
> > some computer system / publication pragmatically useful to mention
> > that fact is of course quite another matter.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 00:08:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:57 UTC