- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:07:06 -0700
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>: > Skosxl:Label treates "names" as first class objects. There is a > solution here somewhere, but we need to separate the identity of > "the name" from "the thing". Skosxl:prefLabel/altLabel do that. > Authority is also important when naming and skos:inScheme helps there. Perhaps I don't understand the difference between SKOS and Skosxl, but my reading of the use of labels for both of those is that you are providing the label for *something*. In authority data, the authoritative name (the MARC 1XX) *is* the thing. At least, that seems to be what FRAD is saying. kc > > Jeff > > Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > -- 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 13:07:41 UTC