<[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7495 signatures=670478
Presumably, Kevin can publish this exact statement on the Web in his own do=
main. The URI where he does so can, if necessary, be used to indicate where=
the statement was obtained. If the statement is embedded as RDFa in the UI=
, humans and machines can both win.
As Simeon suggests, some of these use cases don't need heavyweight provenan=
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simeon Warner
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and Linked Data (Authorities)
> IMO, the statement:
> http://viaf.org/viaf/64055977/ skos:note "He smelled very bad"
> contains no provenance information about the _statement_. It is
> dangerous to infer any from the subject URI (although one might infer
> something about the provenance of the subject URI itself). If people
> interpret that wrongly as Kevin mentions, that seems like an education
> Now, perhaps if I downloaded that statement as LOD from
> http://viaf.org/viaf/64055977/ then I might reasonably infer something
> about provenance (perhaps that OCLC asserted, approved or collected the
> statement; to be specific one would need out-of-band knowledge of OCLC
> and that dataset).
> If one really cares about the expressing the provenance then it should
> be made explicit and systems will need to keep track of it. This could
> involve recording where things came from in "identified datasets" as
> Jeff Young suggests (separate branch of the thread) or more heavyweight
> methods such as named graphs, nquads etc...
> Being able to served LOD from a subject URI does seem like a valid
> motivation to mint new URIs that are owl:sameAs existing ones. However,
> I don't think that should be conflated with provenance interpretation.
> On 7/10/14 2:30 PM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> > Dear Karen,
> > The complexity arises if someone other than OCLC (?) asserts
> > about a VIAF URI.
> > So, for example (and, please note, I've used a different URI,
> > well, the one your provided is problematic for my purpose here), what
> > if /I/ asserted:
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/64055977/ skos:note "He smelled very badly, all
> > the time."
> > On the surface it looks like VIAF/OCLC said Raphael smelled badly,
> > the time because, provenance-wise, the domain tracks back to OCLC.
> > reality, I said it, but you cannot tell.
> > If we use global URIs, and additional statements are made against
> > those, then something like this could happen.
> > Yours,
> > Kevin
> > *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> > *Smith-Yoshimura,Karen
> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:40 PM
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and Linked Data (Authorities)
> > Kevin -
> > Re:
> > >There's been lots of talk about provenance and the like in a global
> > graph of data, but I feel most of those discussions rely on fairly
> > technical mechanisms, the complexity of >which outweigh the
> > of minting one's own URI. (Also, the provenance statements will need
> > their own URIs!)
> > Doesn't http://viaf.org/viaf/54202464 show the provenance is VIAF?
> > What's complex about this?
> > Karen S-Y