RE: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition

Erik,

What Andy and I are suggesting are not "arbitrarily different URIs".
These are different URIs that preserve (rather than conflate) the
identity of things with different types (especially across different
ontologies). Ross said it as well as anyone possibly could: "Other
people think differently". Our suggestion is to accept and respect these
differences.

Splitting hairs on "person" misses the point that the interpretation of
similarities and differences different ontologies is highly subjective.
Freely conflating types on a subjective basis undermines unexpected
reuse where the distinctions are important.

Life finally made sense when I stopped worrying whether "persons" and
"personas" are the same things. There is no truth in the answer, there
are only use cases to be considered. 

Then again there are the bad days when I believe everything is a
"record". :-(

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Erik Hetzner
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:51 PM
To: public-lld
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical
Composition

At Wed, 7 Jul 2010 14:30:37 -0400,
Ross Singer wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure where you get that it's appropriate (or preferred) to
only have
> one rdf:type per resource.
> 
> I am with you about foaf:Person and skos:Concept, only because I think
> they're different things (that is, they are abstractly disjoint even
if they
> aren't ontologically).  Other people think differently.
> 
> However I don't think it's necessary to create a bunch of different
URIs to
> say that:
> 
> http://purl.org/NET/book/isbn/0192838024#book
> 
> is a:
> 
> http://purl.org/NET/book/vocab#Book
> http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/Book
> http://vocab.org/frbr/core#Manifestation
>
http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlacehold
er
>
http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/bookmashup/simpleCommerceVoc
ab01.rdf#Book

Agreed with Ross here.

rdf:type should not be used to address the issues you are talking
about. You can use named graphs to keep the sources of information
separate, or you can use two identified resources (URIs) to keep track
of two different concepts (e.g., a person as a person, or a person as
a concept).

If resources are constrained to having one rdf:type, then we are going
to create many new, unnecessary URIs, as Ross says above, breaking the
web architecture best practice:

  A URI owner SHOULD NOT associate arbitrarily different URIs with the
  same resource. [1]

best, Erik

1. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases

Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 20:32:21 UTC