 |
 |
Regarding FOAF and "Testing status", I thought this blog from awhile back rang true: http://philarcher.org/diary/2012/danbri/ Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:41 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was > http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the > "lightweight abstraction layer") > > Nate, what this says to me is that we need to work more collaboratively > with others. This is what I hoped would come out of the NISO Bib > Framework meeting (but unfortunately did not). I've been very > frustrated with foaf - so much potential, and yet so un-realized. And > it isn't being very actively developed anymore. So we can either roll > our own, OR try to find a way to collaborate on standards for the Web, > not standards for the library community only. > > If we were, for example, a community of flat worm neuron researchers, > it might make sense to develop our own ontology with little direct > interaction with that of others. But the data that libraries will > create is by definition not exclusive to the library use case -- our > metadata describes people, intellectual resources, places, events, time > periods. > These are about as close to universal concepts as you'll get. There's > probably nothing in our data that shouldn't be linking to someone > else's information somewhere. > > It makes me cringe a bit when I hear it, but it has been suggested that > libraries are the logical organizations to take on the archiving and > perhaps even maintenance of key ontologies. I know we don't have the > funding for that and I am reminded of the poster that read: "What if > schools were fully funded and the military had to hold a bake sale to > buy an airplane?" > > So I agree, Nate, with your assessment -- that we can't risk using > ontologies that can change arbitrarily. But we could potentially become > partners in those ontologies, just as libraries from different > countries have become partners in MARC21 and BIBFRAME. Dividing the > world at libraries/not-libraries is the problem. Well, the crux of the > problem is that we'd have to hold a bake sale to get the $$ and > staffing to be participants, and even that wouldn't cover it. > > *aaaarrrrggghhh!* > > kc > > > On 5/23/13 8:39 AM, Trail, Nate wrote: > > If you adopt someone else's terms, you are stuck with their > definitions, and if they decide to change them, you have to revisit > your decision: a constant maintenance headache. > > > > The foaf vocab is in Testing status, version 0.98. Are they going to > change it before it comes out? Who knows? Will they add something > better like foaf:sortName that is more like a traditional library > listing? > > > > Just coming up with a list of all the possible terms out there and > fighting over whether they are close enough to use for each term we > have will be a major use of time. > > > > On DC, people you might not be for it, but if we opened the BF vocab > up, there might be a lot of clamor for it; it's so simple and it's all > over the place! > > > > Nate > > PS I had a good laugh about the Unicode and ISO 639 "roll our own > comment". I'm working right now on developing a computer that uses 2s > and 3s instead of 1s and 0s. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: stuart yeates [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:31 PM > > To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > > Cc: Trail, Nate > > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was > > http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the > > "lightweight abstraction layer") > > > > On 23/05/13 05:25, Trail, Nate wrote: > >> I think when you start reusing existing properties, you're relying > on > >> them being around for the long haul, and requiring systems that > >> consume them to be aware of all the multiple namespaces. > > The "syntactic sugar" option used by > madsrdf:hasCloseExternalAuthority does not introduce a new namespace > from the users' point of view. The syntactic sugar can even be kept in > a separate RDF file from the definition of the bibframe properties, > making it second class and invisible to everyone who doesn't want it. > > > > > In all cases, I can't > > > see us (the library community) agreeing that the way foaf or dc > (or > whatever) uses a term really matches what we're talking about. > > > > Following that arguement we should also walk away from ISO 639, ISO > 3166, RFC 3986, Unicode and so forth. None of them are perfect from a > library point of view but all of the are better than rolling our own. > > > > [For the record I'm not suggestion using dc / Dublincore.] > > > > cheers > > stuart > > -- > > Stuart Yeates > > Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/ > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet