Je ne comprends pas l'anglais.
Je ne comprends pas l'URI otherDesignationAssociatedWithTheCorporateBody
Opaque URIs with human readable labels helps in an international context.
Just my two yens worth :)
Digital Access Manager
National Library of Scotland
George IV Bridge
Edinburgh EH1 1EW, Scotland
e: [log in to unmask]
t: +44 (0)131 623 3770
From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Dan Scott [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 January 2014 21:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Fwd: [rules] Publication of the RDA Element Vocabularies
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I can't address the first points, but I can speak a bit to the question of
> meaningful URIs. In the original creation of the RDA elements, "meaningful"
> URIs were used based on the actual RDA terminology. This resulted in URIs
> Not only that, the terminology for some elements changed over time, which in
> some cases meant deprecating a property that was then overly confusing based
> on its name.
> Now, I agree that one possibility would have been for the JSC to develop
> meaningful but reasonably short property names. Another possibility is that
> we cease looking at URIs and begin to work with labels, since URIs are for
> machines and labels are for humans. Unfortunately, much RDF software still
> expects you to work with the underlying URI rather than the human-facing
> label. We need to get through that stage as quickly as possible, because
> it's causing us to put effort into URI "naming" that would be best used for
> other analysis activities.
Thanks for responding on this front. I understand that, while the
vocabulary was in heavy active development it might have been painful
to adjust as elements changed, but given that this marks the actual
publication of the vocabulary, that churn should have settled down,
and then this part of the JSC's contribution to semantic web could
have semantics applied at both the micro and macro level.
I guess I see URIs as roughly parallel to API names; as long as humans
are assembling programs, we're likely to benefit from having
meaningful (no air quotes required) names... even if sometimes the
meaning drifts over time and the code & APIs need to be refactored.
Dealing with sequentially numbered alphanumeric identifiers reminds me
rather painfully of MARC.
For what it's worth (and it might not be worth much) "curl
http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/a/P50101 | grep "reg:name" | sort |
uniq -c" shows that the reg:name property is unique across all of the
agent properties, at least. Remnants of the earlier naming effort? If
that pattern holds, those could have been simply used for the
identifiers in place of "P#####". The most unwieldy of those appears
to be "otherDesignationAssociatedWithTheCorporateBody" (which _is_
unwieldy, certainly, but still more meaningful than
Perhaps it's not too late?
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
National Library of Scotland, Scottish Charity, No: SCO11086
This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee please inform the sender and delete the email from your system. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of National Library of Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. No liability is accepted for any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message.