RE: is FRBR relevant?

Linked Data avoids this kind of mythological and undocumented way of
thinking. 

This URI identifies a Web document:

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273
cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#oldweb 

This URI identifies the concept of WWII:

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#concept
cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri

Currently, there is no HTTP URI to identify the LC subject heading
"World War, 1939-1945". 

If LC used SKOS XL this could be "fixed".

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:00 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: William Waites; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: RE: is FRBR relevant?
> 
> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
> 
> 
> >
> > I suspect we are thinking about this problem differently. This URI
> > identifies a Web document:
> >
> > http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273
> >
> > This URI identifies the concept of WWII:
> >
> > http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#concept
> 
> I had this debate at length on the ol-tech list when I was developing
> the RDF output from Open Library. I was informed that this is NOT the
> common usage. The arguments go something like this:
> 
> - everything on the Web is a web thing
> - it is not the web thing-ness that is of interest to people using the
> web, but the meaning behind the web thing
> - therefore, it is best to skip the web-thing layer, and instead code
> for the more meaningful layer
> 
> For example, you code an ebook as a book in electronic form, not as a
> series of bits. You code an mp3 as a song, not as a file.
> 
> This follows library practice where the physical format (bound paper,
> electronic file, CD) is considered secondary.
> 
> That said, it's not entirely unambiguous, there are definitely gray
> areas. But I would say that http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273
> represents an intellectual construct, an entry in the LC subject
> authority file which has as its meaning a particular concept. Then you
> can use some other designation, if you wish, to represent the LCSH
> record/web document. This latter is usually considered administrative
> information; it is highly useful, but not the purpose of the data.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> >
> > Currently, there is no HTTP URI to identify the LC subject heading
> > "World War, 1939-1945".
> >
> > If LC used SKOS XL they could "fix" that.
> >
> > This is a subtle but important point related to Linked Data. I
> encourage
> > members of LLD XG to puzzle this out. Asking questions will help.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: William Waites [mailto:william.waites@okfn.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:24 PM
> >> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> >> Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -w
> >>
> >> --
> >> William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
> >> Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
> >> Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK
> >>
> >> RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
> >> 		http://ordf.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 17:00:01 UTC