[open-bibliography] New BNB sample data available

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung at oclc.org>:

>
> I think we agree that the MESH and LCSH Concepts are owl:differentFrom
> despite their skos:exactMatch relationship. I assume this is the source
> of Karen's confusion on the identity of "the thing" (concept) they
> presumably have in common.
>

Jeff, I have no problem with MeSH and LCSH -- those are different  
vocabularies, and often the terms are not equivalents. I'm concerned  
about future vocabularies when we've gotten vocabularies out beyond  
institutional silos and different folks want to be compatible but do  
not want to use the same display for their users. This would mean  
using the same URI but a different human display. It seems to me that  
RDF would potentially allow that, but SKOS seems to close down that  
possibility.

kc


>
>
> I admit this proposal is disconcerting because it uses both skos:Concept
> and frbr:Concept, but it would resolve the problem of different
> prefLabels in different schemes for the same thing. For example:
>
>
>
> mesh:concept1 a skos:Concept ;
>
>                 skos:inScheme mesh:scheme ;
>
>                 skos:exatcMatch lcsh:concept1 ;
>
>                 skos:prefLabel "The MESH term" ;
>
>                 foaf:focus frbr:concept1 .
>
>
>
> lcsh:concept1 a skos:Concept ;
>
>                 skos:inScheme lcsh:scheme ;
>
>                 skos:exactMatch mesh:concept1 ;
>
>                 skos:prefLabel "The LCSH term" ;
>
>                 foaf:focus frbr:concept1 .
>
>
>
> # The primary entity
>
> frbr:concept1 a frbr:Concept ;
>
>                 frbr:hasTerm "The LCSH term" ;
>
>                 frbr:hasTerm "The MESH term" ;
>
>                 frbr:hasTerm "other term" .
>
>
>
> Note that FRBR:Concept doesn't have a property to express prefLabel (and
> IMO shouldn't). This same pattern would work for other types of primary
> entities like frbr:Person, frbr:CorporateBody, etc.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> From: sesuncedu at gmail.com [mailto:sesuncedu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Simon Spero
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 4:33 PM
> To: Karen Coyle
> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org; public-lld
> Subject: Re: New BNB sample data available
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
> 	Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung at oclc.org
> <mailto:jyoung at oclc.org> >:
>
> 	I agree that you have stated these as equivalents, but do you
> agree that these two concepts use different identifiers?
>
>
>
> 	kc
>
>
>
> The constraint is stronger than that; If two Things have different
> preferred labels  in a given language in the same conceptScheme, then it
> is necessarily true that they have different identifiers, *and* that the
> identifiers are owl:differentFrom.
>
>
>
>  Notice that LCSH has different schemes for juvenile and non-juvenile
> headings (some of which have the same preferred label/Descriptor).
> Terms can be in different registers
> <http://www.ttt.org/clsframe/datcats02.html#register>  without being in
> different languages.  There's even an ISO registry of register -
> http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/1988 .
>
>
>
> Also, if distinct uris which refer to Concepts which exactMatch, the
> Concepts have the same extension, but the uris need not refer to the
> same Concept object (in fact, in the case discussed above, the URIs
> cannot be referring to the same object).
>
>
>
> BTW, SKOS explicitly declines to make exactMatch reflexive,  though it
> does make it Symmetric and Transitive, which means that if A exactly
> matches anything, it exactly matches itself.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet