W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Wiki page on Goals

From: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:32:20 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinc6FF4eD2oVGsKWTin0O7fdmut-11j4OKii7SB@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
>> To me, everything in linked data is a relationship.
>> Even the triple "X dc:title 'On History'" is the relationship
>> of "X" to a title (a string literal).  So to me, description
>> is the act of relating a resource to descriptive information - or
>> to other resources.  Therefore, I would put "DESCRIBE" under the
>> heading "Make relationships".
> I'm not clear on what DESCRIBE really means, but I would guess something
> similar as what Tom says. But it should also be clear whether this
> descriptive information is new in the LD representation or was already
> present in the original data. In the last situation, I actually think this
> goal is superfluous to those under Represent original data as RDF.

Ok to cover all kind of description with RELATE - but I'm not sure
this will feel comfortable for librarians. Librarians are only sure
about one thing, they describe things. If you take that away from
them, well... your responsibility ;-)
More seriously, I feel slightly uncomfortable with using RELATE for
litterals (which proves I am a librarian ;-).

Anyway, I think my DESCRIBE is not completely covered by the current
RELATE(qualifier) as described :
    * existing - to specify representing relationships between the
entities that already existed in the data
    * new - to specify adding relationships between the entities that
did not already exist in the original data (e.g. Use Case Mapping
Scholarly Debate)
    * aggregations - to specify aggregations

In my use case there may be no original data. Then it's creating
relationships (descriptions) altogether, from scratch.

I propose we change the description of RELATE(new) into :
    * new - to specify new relationships between entities (e.g. Use
Case Mapping Scholarly Debate) either using machine processing
(inferences, alignments, etc.) or manually (tagging, cataloguing)

Another question about RELATE(existing) :
relationships may exist in the data but be totally implicit. If you
make them explicit, is it a new relationship, or an existing one ?
Example (very simplified) :

(implicit relationship)
http://example.com/book1 dc:creator "J.R.R. Tolkien"
http://example.com/book2 dc:creator "J.R.R.Tolkien"
http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067 foaf:name "Tolkien, J.R.R. (John Ronald
Reuel), 1892-1973"

(same relationship made explicit)
http://example.com/book1 dc:creator http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067
http://example.com/book2 dc:creator http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067
http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067 foaf:name "Tolkien, J.R.R. (John Ronald
Reuel), 1892-1973"
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 15:32:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:38 UTC