- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:04:28 +0100
- To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
+1 here... Antoine > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 07:50:06PM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote: >> Tom, are you thinking that this is a statement for the group's report? > > If we agree on it, then yes, this is the sort of statement > I think the report should make. The text makes reference to > FRBR and RDA but the point is more general. If we think it > is close enough but needs improvement, we should word-smith. > > The more general issue is that we need to keep trying to > distill our discussion into text for the report or we'll > never make the May target... > > Tom > >> >> kc >> >> Quoting Thomas Baker<tbaker@tbaker.de>: >> >>> On Tue, 8 March, Ross wrote: >>>> This is not to say that the FRBR model is wrong or even necessarily >>>> flawed. >>>> I just think that applying it verbatim to RDF through OWL with an >>>> application profile that is intended to enforce its rules is more likely a >>>> barrier to adoption than it is insurance of semantic interoperability. >>> >>> On Tue, 8 March, Jeff wrote: >>>> The constraints found in OWL could be enforced by another layer such as >>>> Pellet ICV or Application Profiles, but we shouldn't assume these layers >>>> are implied in the "strictness of FRBRer". >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Richard Light >>> <richard@light.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> I strongly agree with the thought that an entity can be given a URL, and >>>> thereby you can finesse the need for the "concept is the sum of its >>>> properties" approach. We will have many similar cases in the museum world, >>>> where information about an entity of interest (person, place, event, ...) >>>> will be incomplete, or uncertain, or both. This shouldn't stop us from >>>> asserting what we _do_ know (or believe). >>> >>> To summarize, can we say the following? >>> >>> FRBR and RDA can improve the precision of resource description >>> and increase the opportunities for sharing descriptions at >>> various levels by making modeling distinctions grounded in >>> a coherent intellectual model. >>> >>> However, for the linked data context, outside of the library >>> silo -- where knowledge about the things being described may >>> be imperfect, where the people making descriptions may have >>> an imperfect grasp of the models or of their applicability, >>> and where people may have data or software that lack clear >>> support of the models -- FRBR and RDA should be made available >>> for use in a form that is ontologically tolerant. >>> >>> The sort of strict enforcement of rules and that served the >>> cause of data sharing in a time when data exchange required >>> the integrity of shared formats is not only not necessary >>> in the more loosely aligned linked data context - it is >>> counterproductive. >>> >>> The FRBR and RDA vocabularies can be defined in an >>> ontologically tolerant manner, such that data which uses the >>> models imperfectly -- or data about things to which the models >>> imperfectly apply -- will not raise fatal exceptions when >>> linked with data that may be simpler, vaguer, or simply based >>> on different models. Apparent misalignments, or contradictions >>> to the logic of the models, or gaps in descriptions, should >>> be flagged with nothing stronger than helpful error messages. >>> >>> Application profiles, whether defined using OWL constraints >>> or through other means, still provide a way to constrain the use >>> of such vocabularies to an arbitrary degree of strictness >>> for the purposes of enforcing data integrity within a silo. >>> >>> Hard-coding such constraints into the vocabularies themselves >>> imposes that ontological strictness on all downstream users >>> of the vocabularies, thus raising the bar to their adoption >>> and compromising their potential impact outside of the >>> library world. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tom Baker<tbaker@tbaker.de> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 12:03:53 UTC