- From: William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:19:51 -0400
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data <open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org>
Forwarding to LLD WG, this mentions two use cases that may
or may not be out of scope for the group since they might stray
too far from traditional library science domains.
Use case 1: how to express curated lists of works, as in bibliographies
and reading lists.
Use case 2: how to express the state of scholarly knowledge or
debate about works and the relationships between them.
Cheers,
-w
-------- Original Message --------
On 10-07-12 08:46, Benjamin O'Steen wrote:
> I wondered what your plans were for this area of the bibliographica
> functionality? Curated lists, or something a little more (using some of
> the argumentative predicates in the CiTO ontology, like 'confirms',
> etc?)
I've been meaning to write up the way I see aggregations/lists
being done since it was mentioned on the list last week. Briefly
making a curated list is just making an ore:Aggregation that
includes another ore:Aggregation per work/book/whatever.
The reason for two levels is that the lower level contains the
Work and its Authors since you normally want that information
together whereas the top level is a collection effectively of Works.
Richer predicates, such as the argumentative ones from CiTO
have been contemplated since the beginning but I think this
might be orthogonal to curated lists?
Not sure what happens when there is scholarly disagreement
about whether one work confirms another... Do we need to
go down the reification road here? e.g.:
scholar1 a foaf:Person ;
believes [ a Belief ;
rdf:subject book1 ;
rdf:predicate cito:confirms ;
rdf:object book2 ] .
scholar2 a foaf:Person ;
believes [ a Belief ;
rdf:subject book1 ;
rdf:predicate cito:refutes ;
rdf:object book2 ] .
This might expose a missing predicate in cito -- scholar2
might deny that book1 confirms book2 but not go so far as
to say it refutes it. I guess we need to get into beliefs about
beliefs in that case...
Cheers,
-w
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 14:21:18 UTC