RE: Recommendations: URIs

Karen,

I believe that in OWL, individuals are considered to be part of the
ontology. Here's some wording in the OWL guide:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#SimpleClasses 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#Glossary

TBox and ABox are the only terms I've come across that make the
distinction. In practice, though, modeler's have the ability to blur the
line or possibly even switch a term between TBox/ABox as their model
evolves. For example, MARC relator codes are defined as both rdf:type
skos:Concepts (ABox) and rdf:Property (TBox).

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 5:31 PM
> To: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Recommendations: URIs
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> wrote:
> >> I think we're agreeing that "assigning URIs" is a key point
> >> but that for the sake of readers we need to distinguish "URIs
> >> for properties and classes" from "URIs for dataset items
> >> (instances)".
> >
> > Nicely put Tom. I second Jeff's recommendation to at least reference
> > ABox and TBox to ground the more library friendly definitions
> wherever
> > that may happen: glossary, etc.
> >
> 
> 
> What's funny (maybe not 'ha ha' funny) is that I thought that's what I
> was saying when I talked about 'ontologies' v. instances. And the ABox
> and TBox pages made no sense to me at all. So I guess we are still
> struggling with our own terminology.
> 
> OK,  now that we are here, which one are we recommending? That
> libraries concentrate on ontologies, or that they concentrate on
> identifying their "things"? And do you consider the entries in VIAF to
> be "things" in that sense? (Just so we've got a real life example.)
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> "Designing persistent, trusted URIs for resources: shouldn't that be
> the first requirement for creating a Linked Data project ? Aren't
> there cases where it is better to mint local URIs for resources,
> rather than re-use existing ones ?
> So wouldn't it be useful to make a distinction between assigning &
> maintaining URIs for metadata standards, and designing URIs for a
> particular dataset ?"
> 
> Ed said:
> 
> "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."
> 
> Lukas said:
> 
> "- 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."
> 
> Emma replied:
> 
> "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."
> 
> Owen stated:
> 
> "Are there categories of entities we can describe? I'm thinking:
> 
> Globally recognised entities - places, people, organisations, etc. -
> should
> use existing URIs where possible
> Commonly used (in the library space) controlled vocabularies (not
using
> 'vocabulary' in an RDF/LD sense here) - LCSH, NLMSH, possibly material
> types, ??? - should use existing URIs where possible
> Locally controlled entities - catalog(ue) records, items - will need
to
> coin
> URIs for these."
> 
> Ed answered:
> 
> "I agree with Owen: it would be very useful if the recommendations
> provided guidance about the types of resources that cultural heritage
> organizations should consider making available as Linked Data. Perhaps
> this is going to be covered in another section of the recommendations,
> and it can be referenced in the URIs section?"
> 
> It seems to me that we've covered a wide range of topics here. I added
> a sentence to the section "Develop policies for namespaces" reading:
> 
> * In keeping with the principles of the semantic web, promote the use
> of URLs for the identification of library elements, vocabularies and
> bibliographic data.
> 
> We can obviously change the wording. But I still am not sure what we
> are promoting in terms of prioritizing the creation of URIs. Can we
> use Tom's wording?
> 
> "Very broadly, the "library world", along with standards
> developers such as W3C, FOAF, and DCMI should work on assigning
> URIs to properties and classes.  But creators of specific
> Linked Data projects should be concerned first and foremost
> with _creating_ URIs for their things -- the "instances" about
> they want to make statements -- then re-use URIs for properties
> and classes (when possible) in order to make those statements."
> 
> kc
> 
> Quoting Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> wrote:
> >> I think we're agreeing that "assigning URIs" is a key point
> >> but that for the sake of readers we need to distinguish "URIs
> >> for properties and classes" from "URIs for dataset items
> >> (instances)".
> >
> > Nicely put Tom. I second Jeff's recommendation to at least reference
> > ABox and TBox to ground the more library friendly definitions
> wherever
> > that may happen: glossary, etc.
> >
> > //Ed
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 00:28:22 UTC