RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

Karen,

I agree the subtleties encoded in these types should be decomposed into sensible and normalized properties when patterns are found. OTOH, your example contains literals that should be opaquely identified and factored out of CBD RDF representations. This will make these intuitive but idiomatic rdf:types harder to deduce.

Jeff 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Dan Brickley; Ed Summers; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: 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 15:37:36 UTC