Re: Comments on "The OAI2LOD Server: Exposing OAI-PMH Metadata as Linked Data"

Thanks Les,
Good thread.
Do you want me to be fair? :-)

On 27/04/2008 18:55, "lac" <lac@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:40:30 +0100, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Detailed comments below, but I think it may be fair to say that so far
> the
>> OAI community has been more concerned with creating and publishing the
>> OAs, rather than facilitating their complex use by sophisticated open
> agents
>> such as Semantic Web applications.
>
> I'm not sure that is fair, as the OAI community is explicitly concerned
> with "interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient
> dissemination of content". It may be true of the repository community, but
> then OAI specifically separates data provision from service provision and
> so encourages that separation of concerns.
No disagreement.
All I meant was that, of necessity, the publication tends to need to be
ahead of the use in a feedback loop, so it is the first problem to be
focused on. The use then becomes part of the emergent properties world,
hopefully (web science anyone?). So this is a short-term/long-term thing.
>
...
>
>> But we should not lose sight of the fact there are a lot of other things
>> to be identified in an OAI repository. Having URIs for people, in
> particular,
>> is crucial. As far as I can see, the ability to uniquely identify an
>> author and editor has not been a strong issue in the OAI community, and
> we need
>> to encourage it.
> That's not fair. Name authorities are a big concern for librarians and
> 'repositarians', it's just that they have in general lacked a technical
> infrastructure for dealing with name<->id translation. And in a
> predominately google age that lacks LD services, little in the way of
> technology push for implementing them.
OK, agreed. Put it your way.
>
>>> 3. The use of "sameAs" to link the same work in different
>>> repositories.  Is that really what you mean? It allows any properties
>>> of one URI to be associated to the other URI.  So you can't have any
>>> properties about the work which only apply to that repository, like
>>> curation, persistence, etc
>>> I have created a sameWorkAs to get around this problem, in the generic
>>> resource ontology
>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/gen/ont#sameWorkAs
>>> SameWorkAs should allow one to transfer properties of the generic
>>> resource, like copyright holder, author, genre.  But not language,
>>> curator, byte length, delivery format, etc, which vary repository by
>>> repository would not transfer across sameWorkAs.
> But a single "Work" can have many versions, each of which may have
> different authors, titles etc. It is here that bibliography, web,
> repository and scholarly practice get somewhat out of step:-) See the
> recent work on the Scholarly Work Application Profile (SWAP).
There was some discussion of this at the LOD workshop, I think in the
presentation on MARC21, which is good.
>
>> Were the LOD community more mature, we could simply suggest they publish
> in the right form for us,
>> and then use our stuff! Or maybe they are ahead of us, and we should use
>> theirs? Fortunately there are people who are in both communities, as I
>> believe that many of the same problems are being solved here*, and we
> must
>> work to ensure that we learn from each other.
> Yep - we really do need to talk together!
If you dug a hole in the floor, you and I could talk more easily,
occasionally, as Simon says: "One man's ceiling is another man's floor".
> --
> Les
>
>

Received on Sunday, 27 April 2008 18:19:27 UTC