- From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:28:56 +0100
- To: William Waites <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>, William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>
- Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data <open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org>
These are definitely in scope! Thanks, William! -Jodi PS-Very interested to talk more about use case 2 -- related to my dissertation work -- feel free to ping me offlist. On 12 Jul 2010, at 15:19, William Waites wrote: > 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 Thursday, 15 July 2010 14:29:30 UTC