Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Bibliographic Ontology Specification Group
Home
About this group
Apply for group membership
Message from discussion goals, background, etc.
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
bdar...@gmail.com  
View profile  
 More options Apr 15 2007, 2:28 pm
From: bdar...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:28:09 -0000
Local: Sun, Apr 15 2007 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: goals, background, etc.
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Apr 15, 11:30 am, Frederick Giasson <f...@fgiasson.com> wrote:

...

> 2) must support the most demanding needs in the social sciences,
> > humanities, and law (though the last may get a bit beyond scope, since
> > it's another world of sorts), and those who deal with non-Western
> > languages

> Well, this is why a modular approach should be use. That way, if the
> ontology is well done, we will be able to easily plug extension modules
> to describe more precision and complexe things like the law things. We
> shouldn't burden the "core" ontology with such precise things, however
> we should enable the possibility to use such an extension (another time,
> same minding as the music ontology.

I definitely believe it is possible and important to create something
pretty clean and simple but also flexible. The key is really the
relationship properties.

FWIW, in the SVN version of the ontology, I was experimenting with an
idea that I think has a lot of promise. I hooked properties like
author, editor and so forth into the FRBR ontology (author subproperty
of frbr:creator, editor of frbr:realizer and so forth) with the idea
that more complex relationships could be inferred without forcing
people to have to explicitly model FRBR.

Just an idea ...

BTW, I did look at the music ontology earlier, in part because of the
FRBR connection. I actually like FRBR, even if I don't want to
actually have to encode all the complicated relationships (it gets
messy for a lot of citation stuff)!

Bruce


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google