RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

I disagree that these aren't really rdf:types. An rdf:Type is a named set of individuals. Individuals can have multiple types and Wikipedia category/list pages appear to be reasonable "pages" for managing individuals in named sets. We might agree that this or that set of individuals isn't worth worthy of being a named set, but that's life in an open world model.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Morris [mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:51 PM
> To: Karen Coyle
> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Dan Brickley; Ed Summers; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF
> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Those aren't really types.  It's just an indication that her Wikipedia
> page was linked to from those various category/list pages.  Because
> the categories are human curated, they can include all kinds of stuff
> which doesn't make sense from a logical or type hierarchy point of
> view.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Absolutely.  You'd not only get better quality results by querying the
> basic data directly, but you'd also get much more complete coverage
> than Wikipedia categories provide.
> 
> Tom
> 
> >
> > 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 17:06:28 UTC