RE: Recommendations: URIs

I think the concepts of ABox and TBox are useful when trying to differentiate term data from instance data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abox 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBox

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Emmanuelle Bermes
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 5:27 AM
> To: Koster, Lukas
> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Recommendations: URIs
> 
> Right, Ed & Lukas captured my concern very well.
> 
> The issue about giving URIs to vocabularies & ontologies, or metadata
> elements sets (not coming back on the definition here ;-) is well
> captured in the recommendations as they are now.
> 
> But we need more emphasis on URIs for instance data.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Koster, Lukas <L.Koster@uva.nl>
> wrote:
> > Interesting subject. I agree with Ed that organisations should try
> and use existing vocabularies & ontologies (by the way, can someone
> explain the difference if there is any? thanks) first.
> >
> > I'll focus on URIs for "instance data" as it is called here. There
> are 3 issues here in my mind:
> >
> > - URI syntax schemes: this is a general linked data issue, not a
> library related one. Do you really want to give recommendations
>  specifically aimed at libraries for this? A nice recent article about
> this: http://blogs.talis.com/platform-consulting/2011/04/21/choosing-
> uris-not-a-five-minute-task/
> >
> > - The "unique" part of URIs: also not a specifically library related
> thing. The http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html
> article sums it up nicely: central authority, single point of
> definition. A pity that the mentioned links and attachment are missing
> ;-) But it touches on the 3d issue:
> 
> Libraries have a story of being concerned with persistence of
> identifiers, which has led to the creation of schemes such as DOI,
> URN, ARK etc. The advantage is to guarantee the central authority. But
> it tends to create undesired complexity. Maybe even if it's a
> non-library problem, we should tell libraries that HTTP URIs are OK if
> they are managed well.
> 
> >
> > - Which entities should libraries create URIs for? If we only
> consider bibliographic catalogue metadata, then in my view only really
> unique information would be worthwhile. Looking at the FRBR WEMI
> structure, it's basically only the "I", the Items that libraries own,
> or rather the holdings that libraries can give access to (print and
> digital). The W, E and M parts should ideally be described only once of
> course. Or at least as less as possible (I hope this is correct English
> ;-) ). Yes, I know this is very difficult to achieve, but I think that
> libraries should try to link their holdings to existing trusted Work,
> Expression and/or Manifestation instances/URIs, instead of publishing
> the same information over and over again. This is basically the same
> task as with Persons and Subjects: using authority files.
> > So, this could/should be a recommendation: try to work together as
> much as possible. There are already shared/union cataloguing systems
> out there, so use these. Also the new "next generation ILS" systems (Ex
> Libris Alma, OCLC WMS, Innovative Sierra, Kuali OLE) use this concept
> of sharing metadata. These system vendors should start thinking about
> this as well. (I am doing my best with Ex Libris at the moment).
> 
> +1
> Maybe a recommendation that someone should start thinking about how to
> mint URIs for authority data in an authoritative way ? and what would
> be the pattern of such URIs.
> 
> I'm still wondering, though, in a Linked Data, bottom-up, open world,
> does such a recommendation makes sense ? As a librarian, I think it
> makes sense. However, if we wait for this to happen, Library Linked
> Data may never happen. We probably need a pragmatic approach.
> 
> >
> > Lukas Koster
> > Library Systems Coordinator
> > Library and Information Systems Department
> > Library of the University of Amsterdam
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ed Summers
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:28 AM
> > To: Karen Coyle
> > Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Recommendations: URIs
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> wrote:
> >> Thanks for the comment. It seems to me that you are making a
> >> distinction between ontologies (and value vocabularies) and instance
> >> data -- do I have that right? And that we should emphasize creating
> >> URIs for ontologies FIRST, with URIs for instance data having a
> second priority.
> >
> > Personally, I don't think we should recommend that cultural heritage
> organizations start out with Linked Data by creating ontologies
> first...much the opposite actually. I think the report should encourage
> the use of existing vocabularies & ontologies to publish some of their
> unique data sets, and learn what the gaps and discontinuities are first
> before creating new ontologies.
> >
> > It is already the case that the number of URIs for "instance data" in
> the Library Linked Data space far exceeds the number for vocabulary
> terms (ontologies).  As such I think it deserves the most emphasis. I
> think your section about "Develop policies for namespaces" nicely
> captures some of the issues related to both publishing scenarios.
> > However, the section on registries seems less relevant for instance
> data.
> >
> > //Ed
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 13:19:01 UTC