- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:31:01 +0200
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Karen, Bernard, This is a very interesting case I think. Re. the availability of DDC subject as URIs, would it be worth pointing at the http://dewey.info/? It's far from complete, but the use case could be the opportunity to call for more of it :-) . Or to point potential issues there, if there are any. Cheers, Antoine > Quoting Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>: > >> Hi Karen >> >> +1 for this. > > OK, I'll try writing it up in the template. > > >> It's OK although direct URIs for DDC entities would be simpler (things we >> could consider in the use case) > > Yes, and that's an example of a vocabulary that does not yet have URIs > assigned. So it shows how we can go forward even though different parts > of the library community are at different stages of development. > >> >> OTOH at http://openlibrary.org/subjects/halley's_comet I don't see any >> indication of an RDF description, but in records such as >> http://openlibrary.org/works/OL141696W.rdf the subject "Halley's >> comet" is >> plain text value of dc:subject. > > The subject "entities" in OL are not very interesting in themselves -- > each one is just a single literal string. There isn't a structure like > LCSH with alt labels or other information about the subject. At some > point in the future these may become richer entities, at which point rdf > would be more useful. Meanwhile, I could create an rdf output with > dc:subject just so there is a representation. > > kc > > >> >> Those examples point at central issues re. names vs URIs vs >> identifiers and >> definitely it seems a good use case I would gladly work on. >> >> Bernard >> >> >> 2010/8/12 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> >>> I have a possible use case but it may be too specific. I was thinking of >>> writing up the actual effort being made to export Open Library >>> entities in >>> RDF. There are three entities: Work, Author, and Edition. They do not >>> strictly follow library practice, which is what makes them >>> interesting as >>> cases, IMO. >>> >>> Here are some examples. Assume that the RDF in each case is only one >>> possible solution: >>> >>> Author in UI: http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL22022A/Barbara_Cartland >>> Author RDF: http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL22022A.rdf >>> >>> Work in UI: http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/Code >>> Work in RDF: http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W.rdf >>> >>> Edition (Manifestation + Expression, more or less) in UI: >>> http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M/Code >>> Edition in RDF: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M.rdf >>> >>> Some of the issues that the case would raise are: >>> There are many versions of FRBR - does it matter which one you use? >>> We have frbr:Person, RDA:Person, foaf:Person, FRAD:Person.... again, how >>> to decide? >>> There are many elements in library data that do not yet have an >>> identifier; how does one approach that? >>> >>> Or is this too specific for a use case? >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Bernard Vatant >> Senior Consultant >> Vocabulary & Data Engineering >> Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 >> Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Mondeca >> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France >> Web: http://www.mondeca.com >> Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> > > >
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 13:31:36 UTC