RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

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

> 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.

Is this different from an LCSH heading that goes something like:

Aerospace writers

? Don't many subject headings create a set in this same way?

kc

>
> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>



-- 
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 22:04:58 UTC