Re: is FRBR relevant?

On 8/10/10 8:24 PM, William Waites wrote:
> On 10-08-10 03:19, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>> LCSH doesn't need "fixed" exactly. The only problem is that too many
>> people believe the following URI identifies "the name of the thing"
>> (i.e. the literal "World War, 1939-1945") rather than "the thing" (i.e.
>> the concept of WWII):
>>
>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#concept
>>
>> Switching from skos:prefLabel to skosxl:prefLabel and coining a new URI
>> for the skosxl:Label would help clarify the difference (IMO):
>>
>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#heading
>>
>
> Maybe I'm being dense but I don't understand why this is better
> than what http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273 gives us now.
> There are a bunch of labels, a main one and some alternates. You
> can search on them in whatever way you like without any
> ambiguity.
>
> #heading seems to represent "the concept of the name of the
> concept". Do we really need this extra indirection?
>
> The main problem I see is that neither what the LOC is doing
> now, nor any extensions with skosxl isn't compatible with Dublin
> Core.
>
>      [ dc:subject [
>          dcam:member dc:LCSH;
>          rdf:value "World War, 1939-1945"]]
>
> which appears in the wild. If i put,
>
>      [ dc:subject<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273>  ]
>
> I need to make an ugly query,
>
>      SELECT ?x WHERE {
>          {
>             ?x a Work .
>             ?x dc:subject ?s.
>             ?s rdf:value "World War, 1939-1945"
>          } UNION {
>             ?x a Work.
>             ?x dc:subject ?s.
>             ?s skos:label "World War, 1939-1945"
>          }
>      }
>
> As I've said before, this can be converted in an automated way
> easily enough, but I think we (or one of the follow-on WGs)
> makes a concrete recommendation that may supercede DC's
> usage with respect to subjects from LCSH (and possibly
> other authorities). At the very least if DC encouraged using
> rdfs:label instead of rdf:value we would get (with description
> logic) compatibility for free. Compatibility is obviously
> not as straightforward with skosxl
>


Very good point re. the DCAM stuff, William. Some months ago I heard about plans to update it to match SKOS practice--using (SKOS) labels and skos:inScheme, among others. Does anyone know the status of this?

Cheers,

Antoine

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 08:56:16 UTC