- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:54:21 -0400
- To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: <gordon@gordondunsire.com>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590900A887@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
Karen, Sorry, I let this thread get stale. Note that I'm not "creating records" in my example. The records presumably already exist (think MARC here). What I'm suggesting is that we create a library ontology that contains "CatalogingRecord" as an owl:Class so we can make a sensible link between other ontologies (e.g. foaf, bibo, frbrFoo, vCard, etc.) and the library community's legacy concept of "record". See the attached UML. The same idea could apply to "AuthorityRecord", "HoldingsRecord", and the multitude of other "records" we have laying around. Call me backwards, but the concept of "record" isn't so completely alien to semantic reality that producers of Linked Data shouldn't even admit they exist. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:57 PM To: Young,Jeff (OR) Cc: gordon@gordondunsire.com; public-lld Subject: Re: Content vs. Carrier (was: RE: [open-bibliography] MARC Codesfor Forms of Musical Composition) Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>: > FRBR is a technical model and at the risk of repeating old arguments > I believe classes and individuals should to be linked to/from other > models rather than conflating their identities. To illustrate, I > don’t think that “CatalogingRecord” is a bad class to start creating > Linked Data from. We don’t need to redesign cataloging databases > and systems to produce Linked Data. Imagine a lightweight “library” > ontology to help back up these examples involving 2 legitimate > CatalogingRecords (eng, ger) that describe a “single” > Work/Expression/Manifestation/Book: I'm unclear here why you are creating records. It seems that you are using the catalog document as your focus rather than the object of the catalog document. Can you explain better your use case for this kind of approach? Thanks, kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Attachments
- image/jpeg attachment: LLDLegacyOntology.jpg
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 16:55:25 UTC