 |
 |
Imagine that you are making use of various name authorities in your service. You take name authority data from LC and BL and DNB. You have particular validation that you perform on that data. Will that data contain the classes that you require for validation? You might be able to make use of classes native to that vocabulary, but there is no chance that the data from those sources will come coded with YOUR validation routine as a class. A crude example:
Here's the data created by someone, and that you wish to re-use:
http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479
dct:title "Moby Dick" ;
dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ;
dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" .
Here's how it would have to look to make use of what is being proposed (as suggested by a member of the group):
http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479
ldom:hasShape [ a ex:bookShape ;
ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ;
ldom:dataContext <> ];
dct:title "Moby Dick" ;
dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ;
dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" .
In other words, I find it ludicrous that someone else's data should come to me with MY validation rules embedded in it. And if there are any validation rules included in the instance data, then that absolutely limits use to a single set of validation rules. To me, this is antithetical to the idea of data sharing and combining. And it seems so obvious that I can't understand why it isn't obvious to others.
Now I have to head to the airport, assuming that any flights are going today to Boston, which is under 2+ meters of snow, public transport is shut down, and more snow is on the way. If there really is wifi on the plane, I'll be back.
kc
On 2/16/15 6:53 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:47:27AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
How would the "latter" work in an aggregation of data where one
source is using DCT exclusively, and no rdf:type is declared?
+1 - second time today that my posting to the list crossed! :-)
Tom
--