On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Meanwhile, it seems to me that in general we need a more "grown up" > foaf -- one that is less oriented to social networking sites, and more > toward general applications (e.g. alternate names rather than just > nick name). Either that or a real expansion of BIO > (http://vocab.org/bio/0.1/.html) Looking at RDA vocabularies, there is > "name of the person" and "variant name of the person" which are > exactly what I need. They don't require that the name be in any > particular format. RDA also has date of birth and date of death, which > foaf does not have (it has birthday, but that's just month and day). > So it looks like I could use RDA for those data elements, rather than > switch from RDA to BIO.
So if you have that data it sounds like it might be a good use case for the RDA vocab? I'm not tracking the current state of the RDA vocab...is there a good overview somewhere? In my limited exposure it seems somewhat monolithic, in that it doesn't seem to reuse or connect with other pre-existing vocabularies that are out on the web. But it looks like the German National Library is using it in their Linked Data offerings? The advantage of using FOAF (initially) to model people is that a lot of other folks in linked-data-land are using it. It would allow you to make some baby linked data steps, instead of big adult linked data steps without taking too many risks. Also, Dan Brickley has expressed interest in adding things to FOAF that are needed specifically in the library context. But again, just making linked data views available for books and authors is a *huge* leap forward, no matter what vocabulary is getting used IMHO. //Ed _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
