To provide an example of this, I suggest considering https://www.freebase.com/m/0c43g?links= Freebase is a little like Wikidata, but with an emphasis on importing and cross matching datasets with semi-automated matching and less in the way of editorial oversight ('lack of provenance' in library-speak). Most of those 591 links look fine, but some of them I'm struggling to understand, let alone figure out work out whether they're relevant to a library catalog or how to present to an end-user. However, as a fail-over for when wikidata doesn't have what a cataloguer needs, Freebase is entirely acceptable. It may also be suitable for specialist tools that avoid taking all assertions at face value. cheers stuart On 07/11/2014 06:33 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > It is useful and convenient, and it won't serve all purposes-- it's good to have, it's just not enough. > > That second principle stands entire in a world in which provenance information is separate from DNS. Let's say you publish an HTTP URI identifying an author interesting to me, and I make some assertions using your URI. Then someone consuming my data can "travel through" that URI to find out _something_ more about that author, which is to say, to discover more assertions involving that author (presumably with a subject of that author). So far so good, and that's as far as the second principle takes us. Provenance becomes interesting when my hypothetical patron asks, "Wait, how much can I trust this information about my author? Of what value are these assertions published by Jeff Young to _me_?" > > Now, we're no longer in the realm of questions that can be answered by the DNS. > > I wouldn't propose that we somehow "outlaw" letting assumptions about provenance rely on DNS, and we couldn't if I was odd enough to demand it. I do propose that we frequently need more than that, and that we should be thinking about how to do it. That doesn't seem too controversial to me. {grin} > > --- > A. Soroka > The University of Virginia Library > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 2:21 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> It depends on how strictly you interpret "provenance" and the need/willingness to carry it's burden. If people are overly concerned about DNS, then what's the point of TimBL's 2nd principle of Linked Data? >> >> 2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. >> >> This isn't a heavy-weight form of provenance and won't serve all purposes, but it's useful and convenient. >> >> Jeff >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:04 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and Linked Data (Authorities) >>> >>> No, it does not! >>> >>> We need to distinguish carefully between the URI, which is a pure >>> identifier, and the URI-that-happens-to-be-an-URL, which is also a >>> pointer or link. Much of the power of linked data comes precisely from >>> combining those roles, but that needs to be a conscious decision and >>> not a matter of faith. {grin} >>> >>> Let's say that a very small institution publishes a number of URIs like >>> "http://www.littlelibrary.org/authorities/4535". Then Little Library >>> disappears as an organization, and its domain is purchased by someone >>> else. It becomes instantly possible for that someone else to publish >>> anything at all into that namespace and, if we base provenance on the >>> DNS, we have no way to distinguish these groups of identifiers. You >>> might say that VIAF is unlikely to disappear tomorrow, and that's true, >>> but the point is that relying on domain name registrars to manage the >>> provenance information of our metadata would be an accident waiting to >>> happen. >>> >>> --- >>> A. Soroka >>> The University of Virginia Library >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 1:40 PM, "Smith-Yoshimura,Karen" >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 simplicity >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >