Re: bibliographic issues

From: Richard Newman <r.newman_at_reading.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:07:20 -0700

(Replying in one go to the last 6 or so emails!)


> Yeah, I saw that. The problem is that a concept like formalName is
> too broad. One may have many formal names depending on context.
> To my beginning students I may be "Dr. D'Arcus" to the law I am
> "Bruce H. D'Arcus," while for publication -- and in most cases --
> I'd just be "Bruce D'Arcus."
>

As you also mention with your students calling you "Bruce", it also
depends on the person, not just the context. Just fixing a few
properties as "formal", "informal", etc., is probably inadequate -- I
would suggest that this is too complex to model, and so should simply
be left as structured data, with discriminating properties deciding
which name is suitable in each area of applicability, as and when
they are needed.

E.g., a "nameForOnlineForms" property is application-centric, not
formality-context-centric, and is probably easier to use.


> <Person>
> <knownAs xml:lang="en">
> <usageScope><!-- not sure, but I like it --></usageScope>
> <forename>John</forename>
> </surname>Doe</surname>
> </knownAs>
> </Person>
>

Obviously that's XML, not RDF, but with a quick shake of the Magic
Triple Wand:

<foaf:Person>
   <ext:knownAs>
     <ext:Name>
       <ext:forenameComponent xml:lang="en">John</ext:forenameComponent>
       ...
     </ext:Name>
   </ext:knownAs>
</foaf:Person>

-R
Received on Wed Aug 03 2005 - 16:04:10 EDT