Hi Pete,
In response to your comment...
As usual the problem revolves around identity of 'real' things versus
identity of conceptual surrogates. We're convinced that identifying
value vocabularies as concepts is both more generalizable and more
semantically accurate.
In other words, is a list of materials a list of actual materials
(could I cut myself on the rdvocab:glass) or a list of conceptual
surrogates for those materials? And I guess I'm also thinking that a
member of a general conceptual set could easily be inferred to be a
member of a more specific set as the object of the range definition
of a property rather than the other way around. Although I take your
point, given the vocabulary note: "Base material is the underlying
physical material on which the content of a resource is stored." I
guess I'm of the opinion that, in the case of value vocabularies it's
generally more useful to think of 'glass' as a member of the general
set 'concepts' than of the somewhat more limited set 'materials'.
Jon Phipps
http://metadataregistry.org
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Pete Johnston wrote:
> Hi Diane,
>
>> The links above land you on the page that describes each
>> vocabulary--to
>> look at the terms contained in each, click on the "concepts" tab.
>> You'll note that some of the vocabularies have definitions, and some
>> don't (we added them when we had them).
>>
>> Please feel free to question, comment, complain, etc. as you wish.
>
> One question and one comment:
>
> 1. The scenario examples include an attribute labelled "Form of Work"
> with values like "Novel", "Essay", "Screenplay", "Motion picture" and
> FRBR itself mentions some additional examples in 4.2.2. Is there a
> full
> vocabulary for these values? Or is there one in the pipleline? And the
> same question for Form of Expression (4.3.2) (I ask this mainly
> because
> I want to make use of such a list elsewhere!)
>
> 2. The vocabularies you point to are all listed as sets of Concepts
> i.e.
> as instances of skos:ConceptScheme with each member an instance of
> skos:Concept). I just wanted to double-check that that is the
> intention.
> Won't some of these lists be sets of resources of other types? e.g. I
> thought of the RDA Base Material list as a set of materials, not a set
> of concepts. I suppose either approach is possible, but I imagine
> choices here will have a bearing on the ranges for various properties.
>
> Pete
|