RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

Regarding person_123_as_politician, person_123_as_parent, person_123_as_author, my feeling is these would be better modeled as owl:Classes instead of skos:Concepts. For example:

abox:person_123 rdf:type foaf:Person ;
 rdf:type tbox1:Politician ;
 rdf:type tbox2:Parent ;
 rdf:type tbox3:Author .

That's how DBpedia seems to do it and I think it's helpful that way. Here are the types for Jane Austen:

rdf:type  

    * foaf:Person
    * yago:EnglishWomenWriters
    * yago:PeopleFromHampshire
    * yago:Person100007846
    * yago:EnglishNovelists
    * yago:WomenNovelists
    * yago:EnglishRomanticFictionWriters
    * yago:PeopleFromReading,Berkshire
    * yago:19th-centuryEnglishPeople
    * yago:WomenOfTheRegencyEra
    * yago:18th-centuryEnglishPeople

I admit the classes get a little crazy sometimes and wouldn't assume they are used consistently, but I think most of them make intuitive sense.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Dan Brickley
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:19 AM
> To: Ed Summers
> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF
> 
> On 13 April 2011 14:50, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > First, let me just say I'm a big fan of the simplifications that you
> > and Thom are proposing ... they are clearly a big improvement. But I
> > am wondering about the foaf:focus pattern that you are promoting.
> >
> > I know I've said this before privately in IRC to various people, but
> > it's probably worth asking aloud here. Is it really necessary to use
> > URIs to distinguish between the thing itself, and the concept of the
> > thing?
> 
> As a loose rule, I see value in the latter when the thing figures in
> some SKOS scheme, either to be mentioned alongside other related
> entities (also indirectly as concepts) or so that
> person_123_as_politician, person_123_as_parent, person_123_as_author
> could be distinguished as different topics. There is value in that,
> both for using those topic URIs to characterise information, but also
> to talk in more detail about skills/expertise. Someone might be a
> world export on "President George Bush snr. as a manager".
> 
> I tend to see your question as a variant on "why both using SKOS RDF
> to describe concepts of thing, when I could just describe the world
> directly in RDF?".
> 
> That's a fair question. I find
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#L1045 still a
> useful overview...
> 
> Dan
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 14:15:05 UTC