- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:04:00 +0100
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
On 12/3/10 5:59 PM, Thomas Baker wrote: > 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 > I think that this is showing quite well the issue we have with these goals--though I feel we are coming to some agreement! As I got it, Emmanuelle's DESCRIBE is a quite abstract goal, something which can truly appear in a scenario for an end user (e.g., cataloguing/tagging of a book). I feel it is on the same level as the "user needs" dimensions at [1]. RELATE would be a lower-level description, something which can (and/or should) be done as part of DESCRIBE. Btw. it may be important to keep the distinction between RELATE(existing) and RELATE(new), especially here. I expect DESCRIBE would be about capturing new data... But anyway, let's first wait the use case associated with it before discussing it for too long ;-) Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 10:03:15 UTC