> Hi all,
>
> It has been more than a month ago since "we" last discussed the RDF
> output of Open Library. I'd like to pick up on the issue by
> summarizing:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your efforts.
> - we want to keep the distinction between foaf:Person and other
> entities, so changing the author template to use foaf:Agent (because
> we cannot tell the difference at the moment) is not accepted.
> I created issue 145 [1] to 'standardize' the values for entity_type
> found in author records. Using its value ("person" for humans and
> pseudonyms, "org" for organization) or its absence, we can choose
> foaf:Person, foaf:Organization or foaf:Agent.
I think it is a good idea to distinguish person from organizations. I think we
should add a new field to author records to indicate that.
> - I'd like to make the distinction between a URI for something that is
> described by Open Library (Authors, Editions, Works, etc.) and the
> URIs for the descriptions you get from Open Library (as HTML, RDF,
> JSON etc.).
> That's why I have asked to use the URIs without / at the end for the
> Authors, Editions and Works (in the pull request/issue 136 [2]) and to
> redirect HTTP agents to a description when they ask for a Work,
> Edition or Author (since you cannot transfer people and most of the
> works and books in OL over the internet) in issue 130 [3]. When a
> Work's URI is <x>, HTML is available at <x/[name]> (currently
> redirected to by HTTP 301), RDF at <x.rdf> (currently also at <x> when
> requesting application/rdf+xml).
> Using HTTP response code 303 and appropriate headers is common
> practice in Linked Data, although change proposals that may add other
> possibilities are heavily discussed.
I haven't really made a decision on this yet.
> - we want identifiers for Authors (such as VIAF) to be treated like
> identifiers, not like just another link (to the VIAF website). I
> created issue 144 [4] for this, and I think we're ready to agree on
> how to store these identifiers. The discussion on GitHub yielded a
> small list of possible identifiers already.
It is a good idea. I'll implement it soon.
Wondering if we should hide this under a librarian mode, like we do in the
edition page.
> - there is(?) the issue that OL Editions are a combination of FRBR
> expressions and manifestations. I personally think we can say Work =
> Work, Edition is Manifestation, and link the two by the RDA property
> workManifested and not mention Expression, like it is done now. I
> think Expressions can be added later, if wanted. I can imagine each
> translation can be its own Expression, but otherwise I'm okay with the
> current distinction.
>
> I think these were the main topics related to RDF. The topics changed
> to types and documentation of types, then to finding out what actually
> _is_ in the data.
>
> Yesterday I changed the RDF templates (in my fork) to output correct
> XML Schema dateTime values, because the Sindice Inspector [5] failed
> reading the Open Library Work RDF [6].
>
> I'd like to hear from others what (else) still needs to be changed
> before the RDF templates can be updated (or what may be wrong in my
> thinking).
I'm an RDF novice. Any experts want to comment on this?
Anand
_______________________________________________
Ol-tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[email protected]
