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

Application profile idea for subject domains (subtopic from: Re: Open Library and RDF)

From: ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:32:43 -0400
To: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
CC: "public-lld@w3.org" <public-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C88F26BB.ED3B%mzeng@kent.edu>
Tom and Gordon
        <Quote from Tom>:
           > Marcia, would you be willing to present the idea of "application
> profiles" for subject domains in the Friday afternoon joint session
          > in Pittsburgh?

<Quote from Gordon>:
>I'd also be willing to work with Marcia (of course :-) on your proposal for a presentation on the subject domains, >which I consider to be the most significant area where libraryland can contribute to linked-data and the core of >the Semantic Web. And libraryland really does need advice and support from ontologyland; I suspect "further >work" is indeed needed.

Gordon

Yes, I will be very happy to work with Gordon and maybe Maja Zumer (co-chair of FRSAR) to prepare this.   On my list of the scenarios which would lead for different application profiles there are two groups: one group is more related with the types of themas for subject domains (for example, art vs. medical vs. business) and another is related to the types of nomens (and relationships) representing themas (for example, in a classification system vs. in a thesaurus).   During the IFLA conference Gordon, Maja, and I met at various time slots and touched some of these scenarios.  However we have not worked on a formal 'template' for application files yet. We will be working on this next month. May come back to you and others for advise.  This maybe a real useful thing for the LLD XG to explore.

Marcia

 On 16 August 2010 at 20:23 Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:

 > Marcia,
 >
 > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:51:13AM -0400, Marcia Zeng wrote:
 > > On the other hand, due to its high level super-class/property
 > > nature, there are still practitioners in the library
 > > community who were/are/will be reluctant to accept this model
 > > (specifically because frsad did not model for pre-framed
 > > frbr Group 3 entities (i.e., concept, object, event,
 > > and place)).  Our approach is to allow who would like to
 > > keep such differentiating to develop application profiles,
 > > for example, under frsad:Thema they could differentiate thema
 > > 'type' according to Group 3 or other ways.  We believe other
 > > communities and subject domains (e.g., art, medical, business,
 > > etc.) would have very different 'type' of themas from Group 3.
 >
 > Marcia, would you be willing to present the idea of "application
 > profiles" for subject domains in the Friday afternoon joint session
 > in Pittsburgh?  It would be very interesting to hear how formally
 > (or not) the notion of application profile has been defined for
 > this use case.  Perhaps we could talk about whether the requirements
 > for this type of application profile are significantly different from
 > requirements for descriptive-metadata application profiles?   Is it
 > clear to the frsad community how an application profile should be
 > constructed, or is this an area where further work is needed?
 >
 > > The FRSAD model and approach have received strong support
 > > from IFLA (a long story...).  My point is that, in the FR*
 > > family, this commitment to the sharing and reuse within and
 > > beyond library sectors is very determined.  I hope that Gordon
 > > will lead a good reconciled solution very soon.
 >
 > That's wonderful to hear! :-)
 >
 > Tom
 >
 > --
 > Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
 >
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 21:35:07 UTC

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