 |
 |
Simon, You wrote: > Q: In your definition, can *descriptions *be put* * into 1:1 correspondence > with records (where a record is a atomic asserted set of propositions about > a resource)? > I do not believe so, especially when referencing back to where we started - the Marc Record. A Marc record more often than not, contains propositions about many things: * The book itself (lets assume that's what the record is about) - isbn, number of pages, cost, format, shelf location * The author - name, birth/death date * The publisher - name, location * Publication event - date, publisher, location * Subject(s) In my view this record contains information to populate 5 or more separate descriptions, plus the related links between them. > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Yes, I realize that you were asking Richard, but I'm a bit forward, as we > > know. > Karen, thanks for diving in ;-) I do NOT see a description as atomic in the sense that a record is > > atomic. A record has rigid walls, a description has permeable ones. A > > description always has the POTENTIAL to have a bit of unexpected data > > added; a record cuts off that possibility. > Yes. Take the author thing from above. It may have it's basic, Marc record derived information, enhanced, by merging with external resources, to add an author's website or image. > > > > That said, I am curious about the permeability of the edges of a named > > graph. I don't know their degree of rigidity in terms of properties > allowed. > > > > Named graphs were supposed to be invariant under the original proposal; > there is a lot of mess around the semantics right now. Dan Brickley wrote > a very nice example : http://danbri.org/words/2011/11/03/753 . > As per the comments on Dan's blog, it is dangerous to jump on named graphs as the solution to perceived problems. If I wanted to load RDF from three separate libraries in to a triple store I would assign them to three named graphs, but then probably query the default global graph giving a merged view. Using named graphs to try to recreate our original source record seems to defeat the [opening up] purpose of moving to Linked Data modeling in the first place. I also think it would add in a layer of complexity without an obvious justifying data consumer use case. ~Richard -- Richard Wallis Technology Evangelist, Talis http://consulting.talis.com Tel: +44 (0)7767 886 005 Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis Skype: richard.wallis1 Twitter: @rjw IM: [log in to unmask]