tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post8153702871827111514..comments2023-09-29T08:51:56.163-07:00Comments on Coyle's InFormation: If not RDF, then what?Karen Coylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-74953899809690319402012-04-09T09:26:06.181-07:002012-04-09T09:26:06.181-07:00Ben,
although RDA has been published in RDF in th...Ben,<br /><br />although RDA has been published in RDF in the Open Metadata Registry, LC did not participate in this version of RDF and it has not been acknowledged by LC. LC also has not reached out to the OMR to participate in the work on the new framework, to my knowledge. Sadly, I fully expect LC to create its own version of RDA in RDF.<br /><br />As for the development of RDF, although the underlying standard appears to be stable, the standard suite seems to me to still be in progress. OWL, provenance, named graphs... are all being actively worked on, and I suspect that there will be many more standards added to the suite in the future. The Library of Congress has already had some difficulty applying SKOS to its data and resorted to creating its own RDF-based standard for KO data, called MADS in RDF. Other attempts to define library data in RDF (FRBR, ISBD) have revealed difficulties in applying the standards. In part this is because library data has inherent some assumptions that are very "closed world" and hard to translate to the more open world of RDF. I believe that there is an error being made, which is wishing to re-create library data in RDF without making any changes, and therefore without acknowledging that there are some deep contradictions between the library metadata tradition and the RDF approach.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-45577746316008159522012-04-09T08:03:59.105-07:002012-04-09T08:03:59.105-07:00Hi Karen,
Seeing that ontologies are already bein...Hi Karen,<br /><br />Seeing that ontologies are already being published in the Open Metadata Registry, I think chances that RDF will not be used are small.<br /><br />On the other hand, having abstract models (entity definition) that can be translated to RDF models and other model+formats makes for possibly better interoperability.<br />The RDF standards are not in development anymore, as far as I know, but the RDA vocabularies in RDF and best practices for e.g. provenance are, so having something that supports all goals of RDA seems useful.Ben Companjenhttp://ben.companjen.namenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-68969055585244970382012-04-06T22:44:02.270-07:002012-04-06T22:44:02.270-07:00No, I do mean RDF although I may not have worded i...No, I do mean RDF although I may not have worded it well. I believe I mean what TimBL means when he has one of the stars be "Use RDF standards." I interpret "Use RDF standards" to mean that you define your properties using RDF (or OWL). It is my observation that the RDF standards are still in development and that there are still many questions relating to how you do things. Therefore it might be better to follow some general best practices that would translate easily to RDF in the future.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-39385284773839295682012-04-06T15:54:22.714-07:002012-04-06T15:54:22.714-07:00Hi Karen,
You seem to be referring to RDF/XML her...Hi Karen,<br /><br />You seem to be referring to RDF/XML here rather than RDF specifically, since RDF is just a model without any specific representation (or schema restrictions, for that matter).<br /><br />Have you looked at any of the alternate coding schemes, such as Notation 3 or RDFa?Stephen Boundshttp://bounds.net.aunoreply@blogger.com