So what are we talking about here? A situation where an SRU server receives a request for response records to be delivered in a particular format, it doesn't recognise the format URI, so it goes and looks it up in an RDF database and discovers that it's equivalent to a URI that it does know? Hmm ... it's crazy, but it might just work.
I bet no-one does it, though. _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <m...@indexdata.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "Someday, I'll show you around monster-free Tokyo" -- dialogue from "Gamera: Guardian of the Universe" Peter Noerr writes: > I agree with Ross wholeheartedly. Particularly in the use of an RDF based > mechanism to describe, and then have systems act on, the semantics of these > uniquely identified objects. Semantics (as in Web) has been exercising my > thoughts recently and the problems we have here are writ large over all the > SW people are trying to achieve. Perhaps we can help... > > Peter > > > -----Original 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 have some buy in and extend this outside our > > communities, future identifiers *should* have fewer variations, since > > people can find the appropriate URI for the format and use that. > > > > I readily admit that this is wishful thinking, but so be it. I do > > think that modeling it as SKOS/RDF at least would make it attractive > > to the Linked Data/Semweb crowd who are likely the sorts of people > > that would be interested in seeing URIs, anyway. > > > > I mean, the worst that can happen is that nobody cares, right? > > > > -Ross. > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Peter Noerr <pno...@museglobal.com> wrote: > > > I am pleased to disagree to various levels of 'strongly" (if we can agree > > on a definition for it :-). > > > > > > Ross earlier gave a sample of a "crossw3alk' for my MARC problem. What he > > supplied > > > > > > -----snip > > > We could have something like: > > > <http://purl.org/DataFormat/marcxml> > > > . <skos:prefLabel> "MARC21 XML" . > > > . <skos:notation> "info:srw/schema/1/marcxml-v1.1" . > > > . <skos:notation> "info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:MARC21" . > > > . <skos:notation> "http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"; . > > > . <skos:broader> http://purl.org/DataFormat/marc . > > > . <skos:description> "..." . > > > > > > Or maybe those skos:notations should be owl:sameAs -- anyway, that's not > > really the point. The point is that all of these various identifiers would > > be valid, but we'd have a real way of knowing what they actually mean. > > Maybe this is what you mean by a crosswalk. > > > ------end > > > > > > Is exactly what I meant by a "crosswalk". Basically a translating > > dictionary which allows any entity (system or person) to relate the various > > identifiers. > > > > > > I would love to see a single unified set of identifiers, my life as a > > wrangled of record semantics would be soooo much easier. But I don't see it > > happening. > > > > > > That does not mean we should not try. Even a unification in our space > > (and "if not in the library/information space, then where?" as Mike said) > > reduces the larger problem. However I don't believe it is a scalable > > solution (which may not matter if all of a group of users agree, they why > > not leave them to it) as, at any time one group/organisation/person/system > > could introduce a new scheme, and a world view which relies on unified > > semantics would no longer be viable. > > > > > > Which means until global unification on an object (better a (large) set > > of objects) is achieved it will be necessary to have the translating > > dictionary and systems which know how to use it. Unification reduces Ray's > > list of 15 alternative uris to 14 or 13 or whatever. As long as that number > > is >1 translation will be necessary. (I will leave aside discussions of > > massive record bloat, continual system re-writes, the politics of whose > > view prevails, 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 (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, and then we make things easier for > > >> > US. We don't need to solve the entire universe of problems. Solve > > >> > the simple problem in front of you in the simplest way that could > > >> > possibly work and still leave room for future expansion and > > >> > improvement. From that, we learn how to solve the big problems, > > >> > when we're ready. Overreach and try to solve the huge problem > > >> > including every possible use case, many of which don't apply to you > > >> > but SOMEDAY MIGHT... and you end up with the kind of > > >> > over-abstracted over-engineered > > >> > too-complicated-to-actually-catch-on solutions that... we in the > > >> > library community normally end up with. > > >> > > >> I strongly, STRONGLY agree with this. It's exactly what I was about > > >> to write myself, in response to Peter's message, until I saw that > > >> Jonathan had saved me the trouble :-) Let's solve the problem that's > > >> in front of us right now: bring SRU into harmony with OpenURL in this > > >> respect, and the very act of doing so will lend extra legitimacy to > > >> the agreed-on identifiers, which will then be more strongly positioned > > >> as The Right Identifiers for other initiatives to use. > > >> > > >> _/|_ > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > >> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <m...@indexdata.com> > > >> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk > > >> )_v__/\ "You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in > > >> the original Klingon." -- Klingon Programming Mantra > > >
