- From: ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:51:10 -0500
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- CC: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
+ 1 for Mark's categorization! Marcia On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:48, "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > Dropping back in rather late in this thread: > > I would name > > - a set of bibliographic records --> "dataset" > - values records use (e.g. LCSH) --> "value vocabularies" > - properties and classes records use --> "metadata element sets". > > In other words, I really dislike the suggestion of "dataset" for the > group of things that has LCSH etc. in it. > > If library folks would immediately identify "dataset" with "LCSH" then > it's fine, but then my question is what they would call a set of > bibliographic records. > > Mark. > > On 10/12/2010 2:04, Thomas Baker wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 08:01:34AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> Note that Jenn Riley tackles semantic differences between library use >>> of terms and SemWeb use of terms in her (excellent!) slide presentation: >>> http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/education/brownbags/fall2010/rdf/rdf.pdf >>> starting at slide 17. Some highlights: >> >> I'm on the road and this URL is timing out, so I cannot see >> the full document. Just a few constructively intended >> reactions in response to the highlights...: >> >>> ?Subject? >>> >>> In libraries, what an information resource is about >>> In RDF, what a statement is about >> >> The "subject" of a triple, like the "subject" of >> a sentence, is of course what the statement is about. >> >> However, an RDF statement using, for example, the predicate >> dcterms:subject, says what the information resource is about >> -- no difference there. I wouldn't want readers to think >> that RDF is somehow pushing people to think about "subject" >> in a completely alien way. After all librarians, like all >> other users of natural-language grammar, form sentences about >> "subjects" just about every time they voice a thought :-) >> >>> "Class? >>> >>> In libraries, a classification scheme indicating the >>> general topic or area of knowledge covered by an >>> information resource >>> In RDF, a type or category that any type of object >>> or resource belongs to >> >> Hmm, would it not perhaps be more accurate to say: >> >> In libraries, the general topic or area of knowledge >> covered by an information resource as taken from (or >> words to that effect) a classification scheme. >> >> Seen this way, the difference between the two is still there >> but is not quite as wide. >> >>> "Schema? >>> >>> XML Schema defines a set of elements intended to >>> be used together >> >> One could perhaps go one step further: >> >> XML Schema defines a set of elements intended to >> be used together in a specified document format. >> >>> RDF Schema defines classes and properties intended >>> to be used anywhere, alone or in combination >> >> Or more specifically: >> >> RDF Schema defines classes and properties intended >> to be used in RDF statements, either in isolation or >> in the context of a set of statements. >> >> ...though that is perhaps too wordy. >> >> Tom >> >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 14:55:24 UTC