Re: Recording & chat transcript from 19th February meeting now on Wiki

Richard, I think that "related" is too broad, because it doesn't say how 
they are related. The point of commonEndeavor is that these 
bibliographic items share common intellectual content, but the 
information does not exist to say where they fit along the WEMI range. 
So if you have a MARC record, which has some bits from W&E&M&I, and you 
have a BIBFRAME:Work, which has bits of W&E, and you have a URI for a 
FRBR:Expression, you can say they have a commonEndeavor even though they 
are not identical in structure.

kc

On 2/23/13 11:19 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> Right - I see what you ware getting at now.
>
> Vertically, as you put it, I don't think the relationship we are trying to
> represent is as strong as sub-class. That infers that all properties of the
> work must reproduced.
>
> My favourite (today - it will almost certainly change tomorrow) way to
> describe it is that expressions, manifestations etc. are 'derived from' a
> work.  However 'derivation' and 'derivedFrom' still don't beat instance &
> instanceOf as potential property names.
>
> Horizontally,because it would be constraining to prescribe in the vocabulary
> what types of relationship, would not 'related' be sufficient as a property
> name.
>
> ~Richard.
>
> On 23/02/2013 15:21, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard, I'm suggesting that it might be an adjustment to the
>> commonEndeavor proposal. Can we have a discussion of that to get group
>> consensus?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 2/21/13 8:54 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>> I didn't record it as an action as I saw it just as a possible adjustment I
>>> could make to the Work-Instance proposal - which I will do (possibly as a
>>> discussion point) soon.
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/02/2013 16:11, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I recall that we hit on "versionOf" at some point (it doesn't show up in
>>>> the chat). It seems to me that we need to decide if that has the
>>>> semantics of "sub-class" or "related" -- in other words, whether it is a
>>>> vertical or horizontal relationship, and if horizontal then do we see it
>>>> as an inverse property?
>>>>
>>>> I would probably answer "no" to that last question, and suggest that
>>>> "versionOf" simply says that A is a versionOf B with no implication as
>>>> to which came first or which is dominant. It would be correct to say
>>>> that A is a versionOf B and B is a versionOf A, but we would not infer
>>>> that A is a versionOf B and B is a versionOf C means that A is a version
>>>> of C (not transitive).
>>>>
>>>> I realize that this is NOT what "instanceOf" is intended to do because
>>>> instanceOf requires the link to be aware of class/sub-class
>>>> relationships. One could use "versionOf" in place of "instanceOf" in the
>>>> proposal, and that would then define a class/sub-class relationship
>>>> between things. I'm wary of this because I think the real world case is
>>>> messier than class/sub-class.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 2/20/13 12:40 PM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Saturday, 23 February 2013 19:54:54 UTC