 |
 |
Quoting Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>: > 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 [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet