Alexander Johannesen writes:
Anyway, I'm suspecting I don't see what the problem seems to be. To
create the best identifier for things seems a bit of a strange
notion to me, but is this based on that there is only (or rather,
that you're trying to create) one identifier for any one thing?
RDF is fine with one 'thing' having multiple identifiers, it just hands
the problem up a level to the application to deal with.
For example, the owl:sameAs predicate is used to express that the
subject and object are the same 'thing'. Then the application can infer
that if a owl:sameAs b, and a
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:35, Rob Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
For example, the owl:sameAs predicate is used to express that the
subject and object are the same 'thing'. Then the application can infer
that if a owl:sameAs b, and a x y, then b x y.
Yes, but there's a snag; as RDF
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:45, Rob Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
I'll quote Mike (and most common approaches to the problem):
Don't Do That Then.
:)
Oh, for sure. :) But these are very subtle things that are hard to
understand, and certainly the long-term implications, so
[ /me is creating an email filter/rule against the Code4Lib mailing
list to automatically delete messages whose subject lines contain One
Data Format Identifier because he has acquired carpal tunnel syndrome
after pressing the delete key so often. ]
--
Earache Least Moron
Ross Singer wrote:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
formats xmlns=http://unapi.info/;
format name=foaf uri=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1//
/formats
I generally agree with this, but what about formats that aren't XML or
RDF based? How do I also say that you can grab my text/x-vcard? Or
my
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote:
Ross Singer wrote:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
formats xmlns=http://unapi.info/;
format name=foaf uri=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1//
/formats
I generally agree with this, but what about formats that aren't XML or
RDF
Ross Singer wrote:
My point is that there's a step before that, possibly, where the
theory behind unAPI, Jangle, whatever, is tested to even see if it's
going in the right direction before writing it up formally as an RFC.
I don't think the lack of adoption of unAPI has anything to do with
the
Hi,
I summarized my thoughts about identifiers for data formats in a blog
posting: http://jakoblog.de/2009/05/10/who-identifies-the-identifiers/
In short it’s not a technology issue but a commitment issue and the
problem of identifying the right identifiers for data formats can be
reduced
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 11:31 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote
A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
identifier that can be used for the whole format.
This is unfortunately not the case.
For
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
* One namespace is used to define two _totally_ separate sets of
elements. There's no reason why this can't be done.
As opposed to all the reasons for not doing it. :) This is crap design
of a higher magnitude, and the
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 12:02 +0100, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson azar...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:
* One namespace is used to define two _totally_ separate sets of
elements. There's no reason why this can't be done.
As opposed to all the reasons for
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
Yeah, don't use MODS in general; it's a hack. It's even crazier still
that many versions have the same namespace. What were they thinking?!
Um, MODS is awfully useful for a bunch of reasons. I'm not going to stop
using it because they've used namespaces in a
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 19:34, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
In the real world, we use things when they solve the problem in front of us
in as easy a way as possible
And somehow you're suggesting that I don't live in the real-world? :)
Good try, but as far as I've experienced,
I don't understand from your description how Topic Maps solve the
identifying multiple versions of a standard problem. Which was the
original question, right? Or have I gotten confused? I didn't think the
original question was even about topic vocabularies, but about how to
best provide an
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 00:32, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
I don't understand from your description how Topic Maps solve the
identifying multiple versions of a standard problem.
It's the mechanism of having multiple identifiers for Topics, so, in pseudo ;
Topic MARC21
psi
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 18:44, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
Can't you just tell us?
Sorry, but surely you must be tired of me banging on this gong by now?
It's not that I don't want to seem helpful, but I've been writing a
bit on this here already and don't want to be marked as spam for
Alexander Johannesen writes:
With Topic Maps it's been solved years and years ago, and it's the
part of it that the RDF world didn't think of until recently (and
applied their kludges). I'm not going to bang my gong on this, just
urge you to read up on PSIs.
Can't you just tell us?
_/|_
Singer
[rossfsin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:16 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule Them
All
I agree that most software probably won't do it. But the data will be
there and free and relatively easy to integrate
With Topic Maps it's been solved years and years ago, and it's the
part of it that the RDF world didn't think of until recently (and
applied their kludges). I'm not going to bang my gong on this, just
urge you to read up on PSIs.
Alex
--
01, 2009 9:17 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to
Rule Them All
I agree that most software probably won't do it. But the data will be
there and free and relatively easy to integrate if one wanted to.
In a lot ways, Jonathan
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
Thanks, Ross. For SRU, this is an opportune time to reconcile these
differences. Opportune, because we are approaching standardization
of SRU/CQL within OASIS, and there will be a number of areas that
need to change.
Agreed. Looking at the
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Crosswalk is exactly the wrong answer for this. Two very small
overlapping communities of most library developers can surely agree
on using the same identifiers, and then we make things easier for
US. We don't need to solve the entire universe of problems. Solve
solutions, and so on.)
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Taylor
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 02:36
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule
Them All
Jonathan
, the unhelpfulness of compromises for joint solutions, and so on.)
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Taylor
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 02:36
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to
Rule
Them All
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Crosswalk is exactly the wrong answer for this. Two very small
overlapping communities of most library developers can surely agree
on using the same identifiers
: Friday, May 01, 2009 13:40
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule
Them All
Ideally, though, if we have some buy in and extend this outside our
communities, future identifiers *should* have fewer variations, since
13:40
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule
Them All
Ideally, though, if we have some buy in and extend this outside our
communities, future identifiers *should* have fewer variations, since
people can find
Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf
Of
Ross Singer
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 13:40
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to
Rule
Them All
Ideally, though, if we
Hello everybody. I apologize for the crossposting, but this is an
area that could (potentially) affect every one of these groups. I
realize that not everybody will be able to respond to all lists,
but...
First of all, some back story (Code4Lib subscribers can probably skip ahead):
Jangle [1]
Thanks, Ross. For SRU, this is an opportune time to reconcile these
differences. Opportune, because we are approaching standardization of
SRU/CQL within OASIS, and there will be a number of areas that need to
change.
Some observations.
1. the 'ofi' namespace of 'info' has the advantage that
6547 (mobile)
www.museglobal.com
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Ross Singer
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:00
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule Them
All
Noerr
[pno...@museglobal.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:37 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule Them
All
Some further observations. So far this threadling has mentioned only trying to
unify two different sets
33 matches
Mail list logo
