Re: VIAF contributor model

> 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?


Some people do get uncomfortable with that kind of mixing [1]. Personally I'm quite relaxed, though :-)


>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?)


Exactly!

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Nov/0000.html
(better viewed in all the thread's splendor: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Nov/thread.html ) :-)


> -----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 22:56:07 UTC