- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:01:35 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>: > > Is the distinction one concerning the 'things in the world', or more > about their actual descriptions in some particular record? Dan, this is one of those areas where the library cataloging view is very particular but also very different from the SemWeb view. First, I suggest taking a look at the diagrams that Gordon pointed us to: http://www.gordondunsire.com/pubs/docs/frdiagrams.pdf You will see there that names of things are first class objects in the library world. The reasons for this are historical (not hysterical): In past technologies, what libraries mainly aimed to do with names was to create an identity; and an identity for the bibliographic entity is the name. (The name of a Person, a Corporate body, but also of a Work or a Manifestation -- the latter called 'titles' but still with the role of identification.) There is no 'things in the world' concept in library cataloging in the sense that there is in SemWeb. This is in part because the library catalog is a closed environment where all references are to other things in the library catalog (or potentially in the library catalog). Creating a mind meld between this model and the SemWeb model is going to take some fancy footwork. It is this aspect of 'identification' as a primary purpose of the library person entity that makes the linking of frad:Person and foaf:Person so ... interesting. kc > > The 'identified by a particular name' bit sounds like a constraint on > a description. Although you might imagine some peculiar group who > managed to act as a unit without having any consistent collective name > (and therefore no name that could be used in a record), that's perhaps > an unintended corner case. The emphasis here seems not to be in that > direction - but rather on names that exist but are not mentioned in > the right description. Is that a fair reading? > > If so I'd call this a single class, and express the rule about names > as [something like] an application profile. > > cheers, > > Dan > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 00:02:10 UTC