- From: Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:34:31 +0200
- To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
- Cc: William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data <open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org>
+1 Actually I added them to [1]. Emmanuelle [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseNotes On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote: > 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 14:35:07 UTC