Quoting Ross Singer <rossfsinger_at_GMAIL.COM>:
> I realize that's an unsatisfying statement, especially since there
> there seem to be no real established Film-based RDF vocabularies, but
> it's important realize that it's not a failure (or a responsibility)
> of BIBO that it's lacking here.
You are right. BIBO gets to be exactly what BIBO wants to be. But that
doesn't mean that I should feel compelled to use it. My annoyance is
with folks who argue that libraries should be using [insert favorite
RDF bibliographic ontology here] and not 're-inventing the wheel.' For
all that "re-use don't re-invent" is a great idea, you should only
re-use properties and vocabularies that strictly meet your definitions
and uses. Since we are in a moment when the word "compromise" is being
heavily used, I will ask here: "How much should you compromise, and
what are the consequences?"
I think it's hard to predict those consequences, but I'm wary of the
compromises. What I think is a better solution is to define your
ontology to meet your needs, re-using only when the semantic
equivalence is absolutely clear, and to define relationships between
your ontology and the ontologies of communities with whom you wish to
link data. This to me is the "win-win" of linked data. Of course, what
this does is to put off to the future things like trying to reconcile
the 6-levels of serials captions and enumeration from MARC Holdings
with the "volume" and "number" data elements of just about every other
bibliographic metadata schema. In the end, I think we have to accept
that some things will be lost in translation.
kc
>
> -Ross.
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sun Jul 31 2011 - 23:45:02 EDT