Quoting Ed Summers <e...@pobox.com>:
> 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? Yes to both. The only thing "out there" that I think it could link to would be dc:creator in its relationship properties. It could add a "sameAs" to foaf:name and bio:'s dates of birth and death. But other than that, I really can't find other vocabularies that cover the same ground. > > 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 > begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting > has expressed > interest in adding things to FOAF that are needed specifically in the > library context. That would be great. I would love for there to be a general purpose "Person" description that could be extended. Unfortunately, FOAF is far from general purpose -- Friend of a Friend has a particular bias, and a legitimate one, but it's not Person writ large by any means. So we still need a general Person. The problem I see with RDA's Person is the problem I see with all of RDA which is that it is tied to FRBR entities as classes, so if you use it you can't really get far from FRBR. I have fantasized that we could create a good mix between RDA and FOAF (and they have only 3 or 4 elements in common - I did a comparison). RDA lacks all of the interesting elements for living persons: address, email, web site. And FOAF lacks the historical view (dob, dod, etc., "flourished" in some century long long ago) and the formal view (titles of royalty or religious titles). Between them we could have a good "living and dead" vocabulary. I'd like to see it called "Person" :-). kc > > 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 > Ol-tech@archive.org > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > ol-tech-unsubscr...@archive.org > -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-510-435-8234 end_of_the_skype_highlighting skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list Ol-tech@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-tech-unsubscr...@archive.org
