RE: New BNB sample data available

Karen,

Let's use you and I as an example. Assume that this FRBR Event already
exists somewhere, but doesn't have any prefLabel assigned:

ex:World_War_I a frbr:Event ;
	frbr:hasTerm "World War I" ;
	frbr:hasTerm "Great War" ;
	frbr:hasTerm "WWI" .

If you want to assign a prefLabel for your community, you could do so
like this:
	
karen:ww1 a skos:Concept ;
	skos:inScheme karen:myScheme ;
	skos:prefLabel "World War I" ;
	foaf:focus ex:World_War_I.

I could do the same for my community:

jeff:gw a skos:Concept ;
	skos:inScheme jeff:myScheme ;
	skos:prefLabel "Great War" ;
	foaf:focus ex:World_War_I .

Here is a SPARQL query that would allow your community to determine its
prefLabel for the FRBR Event:

SELECT ?prefLabel
WHERE {
	?concept 
		skos:inScheme karen:myScheme ;
		skos:prefLabel ?prefLabel ;
		foaf:focus ex:World_War_I .
}

Does this help?

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:59 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld
> Subject: RE: New BNB sample data available
> 
> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
> 
> >
> > I think we agree that the MESH and LCSH Concepts are
> owl:differentFrom
> > despite their skos:exactMatch relationship. I assume this is the
> source
> > of Karen's confusion on the identity of "the thing" (concept) they
> > presumably have in common.
> >
> 
> Jeff, I have no problem with MeSH and LCSH -- those are different
> vocabularies, and often the terms are not equivalents. I'm concerned
> about future vocabularies when we've gotten vocabularies out beyond
> institutional silos and different folks want to be compatible but do
> not want to use the same display for their users. This would mean
> using the same URI but a different human display. It seems to me that
> RDF would potentially allow that, but SKOS seems to close down that
> possibility.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > I admit this proposal is disconcerting because it uses both
> skos:Concept
> > and frbr:Concept, but it would resolve the problem of different
> > prefLabels in different schemes for the same thing. For example:
> >
> >
> >
> > mesh:concept1 a skos:Concept ;
> >
> >                 skos:inScheme mesh:scheme ;
> >
> >                 skos:exatcMatch lcsh:concept1 ;
> >
> >                 skos:prefLabel "The MESH term" ;
> >
> >                 foaf:focus frbr:concept1 .
> >
> >
> >
> > lcsh:concept1 a skos:Concept ;
> >
> >                 skos:inScheme lcsh:scheme ;
> >
> >                 skos:exactMatch mesh:concept1 ;
> >
> >                 skos:prefLabel "The LCSH term" ;
> >
> >                 foaf:focus frbr:concept1 .
> >
> >
> >
> > # The primary entity
> >
> > frbr:concept1 a frbr:Concept ;
> >
> >                 frbr:hasTerm "The LCSH term" ;
> >
> >                 frbr:hasTerm "The MESH term" ;
> >
> >                 frbr:hasTerm "other term" .
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that FRBR:Concept doesn't have a property to express prefLabel
> (and
> > IMO shouldn't). This same pattern would work for other types of
> primary
> > entities like frbr:Person, frbr:CorporateBody, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > From: sesuncedu@gmail.com [mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Simon Spero
> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 4:33 PM
> > To: Karen Coyle
> > Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org; public-lld
> > Subject: Re: New BNB sample data available
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > 	Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org
> > <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org> >:
> >
> > 	I agree that you have stated these as equivalents, but do you
> > agree that these two concepts use different identifiers?
> >
> >
> >
> > 	kc
> >
> >
> >
> > The constraint is stronger than that; If two Things have different
> > preferred labels  in a given language in the same conceptScheme,
then
> it
> > is necessarily true that they have different identifiers, *and* that
> the
> > identifiers are owl:differentFrom.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Notice that LCSH has different schemes for juvenile and
non-juvenile
> > headings (some of which have the same preferred label/Descriptor).
> > Terms can be in different registers
> > <http://www.ttt.org/clsframe/datcats02.html#register>  without being
> in
> > different languages.  There's even an ISO registry of register -
> > http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/1988 .
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, if distinct uris which refer to Concepts which exactMatch, the
> > Concepts have the same extension, but the uris need not refer to the
> > same Concept object (in fact, in the case discussed above, the URIs
> > cannot be referring to the same object).
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, SKOS explicitly declines to make exactMatch reflexive,  though
> it
> > does make it Symmetric and Transitive, which means that if A exactly
> > matches anything, it exactly matches itself.
> >
> >
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 17:26:43 UTC