Re: Bibliographic Record Schema

From: "Morten Frederiksen" <morten@wasab.dk>

>- In section 3.3 item 4, bib:grpName is suggested as being used for the
name
>of a group. The property foaf:name could be be used instead. Same goes for
>organisations in item 5.

I have said that foaf:name may be used to specify a single string
representation of a name.  When it comes to processing this string, it may
be possible to apply something along the lines of the BibTeX way of handling
the string representation.  Therefore using foaf:name for one or all
representations of a name, whether for a Person, Group or Organization might
have some whacky effects on a name that isnt a person name.  Although I
suppose it could be programmed such that any occurrence of foaf:name that
appears outside a foaf:Person (eg appears in foaf:Organization) could be
ignored.

>- I can see why the pub_details property is needed, but as it is used
>together with e.g. dcterms:isPartOf, it ends up with three property arcs
>between e.g. an article and the journal(s) it appears in. It seems it would
>be a good idea to reduce this "distance" to two, if at all possible.

I would have like to have:
Citable1 dcterms:isPartOF Citable 2
however there are certain details that must be included within the
description of the relation so as to describe it fully hence and as more
than likely the publication details are inherited from Citable2 to Citable1
they must be in a pub_details arc if there is more than one publication of
citable1, hence the three arcs.  I understand that saying
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="XYZ">
   <bib:volume>1</bib:volume>........
</dcterms:isPartOf>
is not RDF. So much as I would like to I cannot see any other way of
decreasing the number of arcs.

>- You mention "inference" and "inheritance" a few times, to indicate that
>properties can be left out. This should be backed by OWL, as it doesn't
hold
>in itself in RDF.

I am looking at OWL and trying to distinguish which are the correct rules to
use to enable me to set this up properly.  However, I find the food and wine
examples in the OWL guide quite difficult to follow.  Does anyone know of a
good tutorial on OWL or point me in the correct direction to learn which
rules are best suited to what I want to do?

>In closing, you might find that your work will be used more, if it is
>assigned a "prettier" namespace URI, perhaps even a W3C one. If you get
more
>backers behind this, I imagine it should be possible to convince the chair
of
>this group to provide one.

University webspace seemed more appropriate than my presonal webspace -
however if anyone has any ideas about where I could move these two and,
perhaps continue the work from.  I would be happy to hear them.


Thanks for the comments Morten

Richard

Received on Monday, 31 May 2004 15:49:52 UTC