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

Andy proposed his example as a "direct analogy" to genericResources-53.
I think he was suggesting rdfs:seeAlso to "variant representations" in a
similar analogous sense. The analogy probably needs work, but seems
useful nonetheless. Conflating rdf:types in a single URI is surprisingly
similar to the situation involving the identity of a generic resource.

 

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#genericResources-53

 

Jeff

 

From: William Waites [mailto:william.waites@okfn.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:54 PM
To: Houghton,Andrew
Cc: Ross Singer; public-lld; Young,Jeff (OR)
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical
Composition

 

On 10-07-07 17:23, Houghton,Andrew wrote: 

You are arguing that they are the same resource by having the
individual, identified by the same URI, have multiple rdf:type's.  There
is a direct analogy with the TAG GenericResource-53 decision which
basically says use separate URIs for the generic resource and its
variant representations... per my prior example:

 

  <!-- Generic Resource -->

  <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Person">

    <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="" />

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#foaf:Person" />

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#skos:Concept" />

  </owl:Thing>

 

  <!-- Variant Representation -->

  <foaf:Person rdf:about="#foaf:Person">

    <dct:identifier>1</dct:identifier>

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#Person" />

  </foaf:Person>

 

  <!-- Variant Representation -->

  <skos:Concept rdf:about="#skos:Concept">

    <dct:identifier>5</dct:identifier>

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#Person" />

  </skos:Concept>


Somewhat tangentially, I don't understand how using rdfs:seeAlso
*implies* that the target resources are variant representations, it only
says that there might be some related information over there, the
question of "related how?" is left open. Continuing, I assume there is
some predicate, xyz:variantRepresentation that has the meaning that you
want.

Now, I can see that what you have written already implies some types
that you haven't written down,

        @prefix : <#> .
 
        :Person a rdfs:Resource .
 
        :foaf:Person a rdfs:Resource ;
               a foaf:Agent ;
               a foaf:SpatialThing ;
               a geo:SpatialThing .
 
        :skos:Concept a rdfs:Resource .
 

I think that what you are getting at is that often people will try to
give a single identifier to different things. This is a problem because
different things should have different identifiers. If they have the
same identifier than as you say it is impossible to figure out which
properties belong with which. So much is true. But having multiple
rdf:types does not imply that such a conflation has been made.

In other words, this is true:

        ?x a Conflation => ?x has multiple rdf:types

but, this is not true:

        ?x has multiple rdf:types => ?x a Conflation

Cheers,
-w



-- 
William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
<mailto:william.waites@okfn.org> 
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK
 
RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
               http://ordf.org/