- From: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:57:39 +0100
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- CC: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <F61A8945B05715448AF2221FB60809250734DC85E9@EX27MAIL03.msghub.com>
Hi Leigh, At the risk of being repetitive, it is another fairly good use case for the VMF architecture: http://www.doi.org/VMF/documents.html The difference there is that you build consensus with the publisher of the vocabulary/property at the same time as building the equivalence table, and maintain an authoritative version that anyone can refer to. Cheers, Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com<mailto:leigh@ldodds.com>> To: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org<mailto:public-lod@w3.org>> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:08 AM Subject: Property Guidance Hi, I came across a nice report on twitter yesterday (apologies, I can't recall from whom), which provides some guidance on creating Linked Data for Bibliographic Data: http://aims.fao.org/lode/bd Specifically it recommends a number of properties and provides guidance on how to select between alternatives. It includes some flow diagrams to help describe the selection -- something I've not seen before and which seems like a nice way to present the options. Has anyone done this in other circumstances? As an exercise I drafted a table (available in a Google Spreadsheet [1]) to start mapping out some guidance for Equivalence Links [2]. Does anyone have any comments? Cheers, L. [1]. http://bit.ly/equivalence-links-guide [2]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/equivalence-links.html -- Leigh Dodds Freelance Technologist Open Data, Linked Data Geek t: @ldodds w: ldodds.com e: leigh@ldodds.com<mailto:leigh@ldodds.com>
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 08:58:18 UTC