Re: implied datasets

* [2011-05-23 13:17:28 -0400] glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> écrit:

] >
] > That may be so but it misses the point. The point is there is a field,
] > be it a URI or a literal however modelled, that can be used to join
] > between two datasets. This join field is "hidden" in that there exists
] > no (known) dataset that contains all possible values it can take on.
] >
] 
] Hmm. I'm still not getting why this is a problem. It seems like as long as
] the ISSNs in both datasets are represented by nodes with type-assignments,
] all you have to assert is that the two types are equivalent (e.g. same URIs,
] or owl:equivalentClass...), and that their rdfs:labels uniquely define them
] (e.g. owl:InverseFunctionalProperty...). I don't (yet) see why you need an
] imaginary extra dataset in between.

I think I see where the confusion comes from now. If one both datasets
and know their structure one would do exactly as you say. If one has
one dataset (say) and wants to find other datasets that might be
usefully combined with it to do some analysis, it would (I think) be
useful to have something like this to help with the discovery. I, as a
curator who wants to make it easy for people to use datasets in my
collection, would then invent this imaginary "join" dataset to help
them find what they are looking for.

Cheers,
-w

-- 
William Waites                <mailto:ww@styx.org>
http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww@styx.org>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45

Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 17:34:13 UTC