- From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:43:18 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>: > >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de> >> wrote: >> >>> However, back to the formats I don’t want to discuss J foaf doesn’t have >>> the >>> power to reflect our comprehensive data – I thought we want to make this >>> high quality data available for the public –if so we should have a closer >>> look modeling the data in FRBRer, FRAD and/or RDA in parallel to the SKOS >>> representation. >>> >> I keep seeing this statement getting made: "FOAF/SKOS are not >> expressive enough for our data" and I'm simply not buying it. >> >> Can somebody please back up this claim? FOAF defines personal and >> organizational entities. SKOS defines concepts. >> >> Those are exactly the things we're describing. > > Ross, at a class level you are right. But if you look at the properties > defined by foaf and the properties used in FRAD, there is virtually no > overlap. So I think when people make that claim, they are talking about > available properties, not classes. > Right, and I have no issue with coining new properties where there are none. My point is simply that RDA, FRBRer and their ilk should avoid defining classes wherever possible, since "type", I think, is the easiest starting point for somebody (or something) to figure out what exactly it's looking at. I would avoid subclassing where possible, as well, since I think ratio of agents with reasoning is likely to go down as linked data becomes more mainstream. Simple agents won't understand that rda:Person is a kind of foaf:Person and unless there is some huge payoff I'm just not seeing, it seems like would just further alienate us. -Ross.
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 14:43:51 UTC