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

Ross,

 

Before we got sidetracked with implications and counterexamples, the
original objection boils down to the use of owl:sameAs to a dbpedia
jumble instead of using a weaker form of sameness such as umbel:isLike.

 

http://marccodes.heroku.com/muscomp/sy.rdf

 

Using umbel:isLike is just a suggestion and there are clearly broader
implications (including multiple rdf:types) as we've been noting. These
are excellent examples to use as the basis for this kind of discussion
and I hope everyone takes the opportunity to share their opinions about
the relative importance and limits of identity and sameness.

 

Jeff

 

From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of
Ross Singer
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:15 PM
To: William Waites
Cc: Houghton,Andrew; public-lld; Young,Jeff (OR)
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical
Composition

 

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:54 PM, William Waites
<william.waites@okfn.org> wrote:

	 

	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

	 

 

William, I think, sums up my argument perfectly.

 

Andrew, you mentioned that you worry about the case of non-type-specific
vocabularies like DC muddying the waters of what they are referring to,
but I'm not sure it matters (since the assertions are attributes of the
/resource/, not the type).  I think the smell test comes in when you are
unsure if your assertions make sense across all rdf:types.  This is one
of the main reasons I don't like foaf:Persons also being skos:Concepts
(for example).  To say that Bob Dylan has a broader or narrower concept
seems strained.  

 

That doesn't mean that being a foaf:Person and a mo:MusicArtist is,
however.  Bob Dylan as a songwriter foaf:knows the same people as he
does as a person.  Bob Dylan as a person was still a mo:member_of "The
Traveling Wilburys".

 

I agree with Bernard that the use of owl:sameAs may wind up being
problematic in the long run and I'm not sure when, how or if it can be
reconciled.  There's a big gulf between rdfs:seeAlso and owl:sameAs and,
unfortunately, there's not much to use in between.  People want to say
that they're talking about the same /thing/ as someone else but the only
broadly accepted way to do so (currently) is to pull out the atomic bomb
that is owl:sameAs.

 

Given that it was my RDF that set this entire thread off, however, what
exactly is the objection to the resources I've made available?

 

-Ross.