On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:13 AM, Diane I. Hillmann
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
My point remains: if we're using lcsh.info URIs as examples, we need to be careful not to imply that these are more than what Ed says they are--an experiment. A very nice and useful experiment, which we all hope will prod LC into doing LCSH officially, under whatever domain. Far as I'm concerned, lcsh.info is a fine domain, but it's Ed's not LCs.
But please, re-read that section without *knowing* that it's an example, think of yourself as someone coming to this for the first time, and tell me that it doesn't need some kind of "flag."
Diane
Pete Johnston wrote:
Ed said:
If lcsh.loc.gov came online tomorrow and all the concept URIs at lcsh.info redirected appropriately to lcsh.loc.gov would that count as persistence? What does "maintained properly" mean in this context?
Isn't lcsh.info just used as an example, not as an instruction to use concepts from that concept scheme.
I strongly agree with Ed here: the LCSH example is being used to
illustrate the notion of treating a concept-as-subject as a resource in
its own right, and identifying it with a URI, following the "Cool URIs"
conventions.
I think it might also be useful to include a short section about URI
persistence and the potential role of organisational commitment to URIs
in supporting persistence, but I think that is a distinct issue.
I don't think there is any need to limit the URIs used in the document
to URIs for which there is some sort of currently published
organisational policy. On the contrary, if anything, I think it is
important to make the point that any URIs owned by any agency can be
used in RDF/DC metadata - while also recognising that URI
ownership/persistence may be an issue to be considered.
Having said that, I'd also add that, depending on the context, the
weight given to that factor may vary: in some circumstances, "This group
of three people guarantees to maintain ownership of these URIs, manage
them sensibly, and serve representations/descriptions of the resources
for five years" _may_ be sufficient for the purposes at hand. Obviously
that may have implications for the longer term stability of a DCAP using
term URIs based on such a policy, but that doesn't stop it being a DCAP.
Oh there's lots you could use: dbpedia [1], geonames [2] opencyc [3] and more [4]. But perhaps these don't meet your criteria for being real either? I'm not really suggesting that GEM vocabs not be used--they seem excellent as well.
Again, agreed. I really don't think there is any shortage of terms or
other resources that can be used in examples, and - within reason, given
that we want to keep the document reasonably concise - it is helpful to
illustrate the breadth of possibilities, and the value of a URI-based
approach, rather than, albeit inadvertently, giving an impression that
only a small subset of "endorsed" URIs, owned by a small number of
parties, is appropriate.
Cheers
Pete
---
Pete Johnston
Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
[log in to unmask] +44 (0)1225 474323
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/