[ /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
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:45, Rob Sanderson 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 people *will*
do this, a
I'll quote Mike (and most common approaches to the problem):
Don't Do That Then.
:)
Rob
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 13:18 +0100, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:35, Rob Sanderson wrote:
> > For example, the owl:sameAs predicate is used to express that the
> > subjec
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:35, Rob Sanderson 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 work only on the URI
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 x
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 th
Ross Singer wrote:
For vCard there is an RDF namespace and a (not very nice) XML
namespace: http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#
vcard-temp (see http://xmpp.org/registrar/namespaces.html)
This is vCard as RDF, not vCard the format (which is text based). It
would be the equivalent of saying, "
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
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Jakob Voss wrote:
> Ross Singer wrote:
>
>>>
>>> http://unapi.info/";>
>>> http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/>
>>>
>>
>> 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
>> m
Ross Singer wrote:
http://unapi.info/";>
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/>
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 application/marc record? There is still lots of data I want that
doesn't nec
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 19:34, Jonathan Rochkind 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, people in the librar
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Jakob Voss wrote:
>> 2) require some laborious and lengthy submission and review process to
>> just say "hey, here's my FOAF available via UnAPI"
>
> The identifier for FOAF is http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/. Forget about
> identifiers that are not URIs. OAI-PMH at lea
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 way
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 12:02 +0100, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson 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. :)
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson 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 designers should be e
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
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 to
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 00:32, Jonathan Rochkind 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 "info:ofi/fmt:xml
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 i
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 18:44, Mike Taylor 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 Topic
Maps.
In th
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?
_
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
--
---
e4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ross 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
th
nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Ross Singer
> Sent: Friday, May 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
; > 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 scala
> 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
> >
...@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 h
l 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-
> >&
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
>
>> --
iew 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:
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 s
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. Sol
LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] One Data Format Identifier (and Registry) to Rule
> Them All
>
> Technically it's 4 communities, but, yes, only two currently have
> "credible" registries in place.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonat
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Peter Noerr wrote:
> Some further observations. So far this threadling has mentioned only trying
> to unify two different sets of identifiers. However there are a much larger
> number of them out there (and even larger numbers of schemas and other
> "standard-th
> 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 of identif
Behalf Of Peter 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 di
ice)
+1 415 793 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 Identi
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
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] re
39 matches
Mail list logo
