RE: Library data diagram

Tom,

Michael and I agreed we could prepare a lightning presentation for the
joint meeting. We talked for a bit today and seem to think similarly on
these issues. I think there is potential for general discussion, but
probably not time to prepare a longer presentation.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Baker [mailto:thomasbaker49@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:21 PM
> To: Panzer,Michael
> Cc: Andy Powell; Young,Jeff (OR); Karen Coyle; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Library data diagram
> 
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:01:16PM -0400, Michael Panzer wrote:
> > > Application Profiles constrain/describe what the DC Abstract Model
> calls
> > > Description Sets (what we might have called metadata records in
the
> past)
> > > - collections of one or more Descriptions. Application Profiles do
> not
> > > describe vocabularies.
> >
> > The same could be done with OWL(2), but you would likely run into
> > problems with the open world assumption, amplified by missing
> > disjointness axioms at some point (see Pete Johnston's post from
> today,
> > who also points to resources on how OWL can be used as a constraint
> > language).
> >
> > Rules languages (as standardized by RIF) might be able to hit the
> sweet
> > spot here: compatible to OWL/RDF and with a place in the semantic
web
> > architecture, but apparently easier for making (and controlling)
> > assertions not about "a world" but a given "document."
> 
> It would be great if someone could bring these ideas into the
> discussion at the "joint meeting" on 22 October in Pittsburgh
> [1] -- especially if these approaches are actually being
> applied somewhere.
> 
> Any volunteers, even for a lightning presentation?
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.asis.org/Conferences/DC2010/program-
> sessions.html#jointmeeting
> 
> --
> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 01:23:44 UTC