Mapping Scholarly Debate UC

• Scholarly debates– Authors, Books, Articles, Schools, Debate subjects– Book A (author X) …… Book B (author B)– Reacts_to, rebuttal_of, disagree_with, …

• Owner: William Waites, University of Edinburgh / Open Knowledge Foundation

• Goal– 1. capture evolution of thought– 2. … (reuse schemas/vocs ?)

• Target audience: students, researchers• Schemas: FRBR-like (Work, Manifestation), FOAF

Mapping Scholarly Debate UC

• Existing work: Bibliographica.org, 73977 persons, 53106 manifestations and 53106 works

• … but appears that no relations defined• … didn’t find the actual RDF schemas used (should

be in UC definition!)

• Cluster with: Digital Text Repository UC, NDNP UC, Publishing 20th Century Press Archives UC

Some observations on UCs• Some UCs document existing work (EP UC)• Others do not (MSD UC)

• Many cases clear need for shared metadata schema• Not so clear where linked data comes in; reuse of other vocabularies or not? Else it’s

Open Data, not Linked Open Data• Goals not very diverse;

– reuse of vocabs – Linking to other datasets

• Sometimes LLD principles are written down in application or goal section• Some UCs are really abstract

– UC Digital Preservation– UC Component Vocabularies– UC Language Technology– UC Recollection

• Isn’t UC International Registry for Authors about creating a new vocabulary?