Again, modelling is a matter of personal judgement and use cases. 

To me it's quite appropriate to model person-subject and person-person as 
different entities -- so long as there is also a relationship relating them. It 
might even be preferable, not sure. 

Assuming OL _knows_ that a person as a subject is related to the 
person-as-person (or is that person-as-author?).  If the OL database doesn't 
'know' this, then there aren't really any options anyway. If it does, I think 
it's fine to have them be different instances of different entities, so long as 
they are related by an appropriate relation. 

From: [] On Behalf Of 
Karen Coyle []
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ol-tech] Author RDF for testing

Quoting Erik Hetzner <>:

> In other words, we have a Person (e.g., [2]), a Person as
> bibliographic entity (as in FRBR), and finally one or more
> bibliographic records about the person, (e.g., [1]). Do I have that
> right?

I was looking at it that way, in particular because the OL gives
subject/person a different ID from author. But then George popped in
saying that it would be good for authors and subjects to be the same
thing, presumably a person, and since she's the project lead... well,
"make it so." So I'm coding authors as foaf:persons since that appears
to be the desired direction for OL.

In general, I consider metadata identifiers to identify the metadata,
not what the metadata is about, but that's my personal bias and
clearly others feel differently. In my world view, people do not have
identifiers, but information about people does. Of course, I live in
the city named for Bishop Berkeley, the philosopher whose theories can
be summarized as "there is no reality, get over it." :-)

Karen Coyle
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Ol-tech mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
Ol-tech mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to

Reply via email to