RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:


>
> 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

Couldn't these be deduced from other data? Using this method, you  
would only retrieve entities that have been given these particular  
classes, but if you turned these into data available to queries...

sex:female
dates: (whatever)
primaryLocation: England
language: English
wrote: (name of novel)
   (name of novel) --> has genre --> romantic fiction
   (name of novel) --> has genre --> fiction (inferred?)

etc. then you would be able to retrieve all or most of the above, plus  
perhaps more. It seems to me that trying to characterize every  
possible combination goes against the basic concepts of linked data.  
Actually, it might not even be particularly good as a metadata practice.

kc

>
> 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
>>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:20:16 UTC