RE: VIAF contributor model

So that does follow what I thought I understood! 8-) 

And what is the advantage of having the two URIs rather than maintaining a single source for the person and getting to the relationship data in other ways?  Or is it that there is only one set of descriptive data and the two URIs associated with that data to use as appropriate? (Am I understanding correctly how this works?)  Thanks for bearing with me as I learn. - Barbara Tillett

-----Original Message-----
From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 5:33 PM
To: Tillett, Barbara
Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); public-lld
Subject: Re: VIAF contributor model

There are two resources modeled:

http://viaf.org/viaf/111894442/#skos:Concept

and

http://viaf.org/viaf/111894442/#foaf:Person

(well, obviously there are more than that minted at:
http://viaf.org/viaf/111894442/rdf.xml)

the first would appropriate for biographies of Bob Dylan, etc. the latter for works by him.

-Ross.

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Tillett, Barbara <btil@loc.gov> wrote:
> I still remain concerned that by using SKOS for names of persons and 
> corporate bodies, there is either an explicit or implied "is the 
> subject of"  relationship going on for the person/corporate body being 
> described with respect to some work.  Am I wrong? - Barbara Tillett
>
>
>
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 5:05 PM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: RE: VIAF contributor model
>
>
>
> Thanks for all the feedback. Sorry for my lag following up.
>
>
>
> VIAF still needs to deliver more substance to fulfill its potential, 
> but the next release should improve interoperability while adding 
> support for foaf:Organization/rdaEnt:CorporateBody. Mockups of Jane 
> Austen and Die deutsche Nationalbibliothek are attached.
>
>
>
> As suggested back at the start of this thread, SKOS will play a core 
> infrastructure role in the next release. Each contributor will be 
> modeled as a skos:ConceptScheme and every contributed record will be 
> modeled as a skos:Concept in the contributor's scheme. The contributed 
> concept URIs coined by VIAF will be based on the contributor's 
> "record" ID and will behave by redirecting to the VIAF cluster to 
> which it is matched (which could change over time).
>
>
>
> Here is a test system URI for a contributed SELIBR record (207420) to
> demonstrate:
>
>
>
> http://test.viaf.org/viaf/sourceID/SELIBR|207420#skos:Concept
>
>
>
> Tangent: IMO, Library Linked Data authority systems in the future 
> SHOULD be based on skos:ConceptScheme/skos:Concept and we're starting 
> to see this with LCSH and SELIBR. I suspect that ANY 
> skos:ConceptScheme could potentially be viewed as an "authority 
> system" and clients should be able to use them as such without assuming any architecture or domain model dependencies.
>
>
>
> For VIAF contributors that choose to follow the SKOS model in their 
> own domains, VIAF should map to their URIs using owl:sameAs. You can 
> observe this in the attached example for Jane Austen involving SELIBR:
>
>
>
> <http://viaf.org/viaf/sourceID/SELIBR%7C207420#skos:Concept>
>
> skos:inScheme <http://viaf.org/authorityScheme/SELIBR> ;
>
> owl:sameAs <http://libris.kb.se/resource/auth/207420#concept> .
>
>
>
> I suspect there will be some concern that VIAF is coining "alias" 
> URIs, but I would argue that intentional HTTP URI aliases play a 
> *functional role* in Linked Data by decentralizing information *about* 
> the thing. SELIBR can deliver its information about "the thing" from 
> its URI and VIAF can deliver more (especially linking) information 
> from its URI. The information may come from different perspectives and 
> yet the players mutually agree it's the same "real world" thing they're describing.
>
>
>
> The solution for the http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#S14 
> integrity constraint for skos:prefLabel on "clusters" is still unclear 
> to me and thus won't be addressed in the next release. (Sorry.) The 
> custom properties viaf:hasEstablishedForm and viaf:hasXRefAlternate 
> properties will continue to be used for now although the use cases for them are unclear.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, I want to align the VIAF ontology with SKOS/SKOSXL 
> wherever possible and so the viaf:Heading class will be upgraded to 
> skosxl:Label in the ontology like so:
>
>
>
> viaf:Heading rdfs:subClassOf skosxl:Label .
>
>
>
> In deference to FRSAD, the next release of VIAF will continue to treat 
> labels (i.e. viaf:Headings) as 1st class identifiable resources at the 
> expense of using plain literals. Without practical use cases, I'm 
> uncomfortable with this choice.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
> ________________________________
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/ shared innovationT
>
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be 
> those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this 
> email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and 
> for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the 
> intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and 
> delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and 
> is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at 
> Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 22:42:01 UTC