- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:59:16 -0500
- To: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 04:32:20PM +0100, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote: > 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 ;-). Point taken. I have backed it out of [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals#Make_relationships > 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) +1 > 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" I'm wondering if the new/existing distinction is really important? Is there a basic difference between the two goals that we would be emphasizing by keeping the distinction? How about: RELATE - to specify relationships between entities (e.g. Use Case Mapping Scholarly Debate) either using machine processing (inferences, alignments, etc.) or manually (tagging, cataloguing) and then split off: AGGREGATE - to specify clusters of related resources This would leave, under "make relationships": MAP RELATE AGGREGATE Tom -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 16:59:57 UTC