How can linking to RDF actually work in real life if each group has their on vocabulary?
Well, you align the vocabularies through RDFS, OWL, or something similar.
Good RDF In and display in browser, sure that will work.
But programmatic use of the data when there is no standard (or even close to a standard) vocabulary?
Well, this is exactly why one would propose RDF, simply because you *can* explicitly align the vocabularies. The downside is that it would require a fair amount of inference/reasoning to work, which is currently fairly unrealistic (not impossible, just unrealistic for widespread adoption) which I don't expect to change any time in the near future.
Sent from my iPad
Owen, I can't speak for Bibframe directly, but in the case, say, of RDA, the argument against using existing vocabularies vs. rolling your own and aligning them is that you can't control the fate of vocabularies you don't own. So if something happens
to them (properties get deprecated/replaced, domain registrations lapse, etc.), you still have control of the predicates/classes you are using and can realign them as necessary.
Not saying that I necessarily subscribe to that philosophy (although I see its merits), but I think that is probably the argument.
Thanks for this Jörg
While obviously plans to align bibframe elements to other RDF ontologies would be welcome, I'd be very interested to understand that arguments against simply adopting existing vocabularies where they exist?
Owen Stephens Consulting