- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:34:27 -0800
- To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>: > 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. Actually, the shortest possible statement seems to be: Current library data standards were developed under pre-semantic web concepts and are difficult to render as linked data. :-) kc > > 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 >> > > -- > 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 14:35:05 UTC