Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

On 1/28/13 12:51 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
>
>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)>
>>          a schema:WebPage ;

>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)>
>>          a frbr:Work;
>>          .
>
> I suppose it is reasonable to conceive of this resource, the film, as
> being a frbr:Work, albeit the often(?) hazy distinction between Work
> and Expression has made me lean towards the latter when in doubt. Now,
> I am very much a library newbie, but I've come to think of Work as
> seemingly close to the skos:Concept class -- i.e. classifying a very
> loose conceptual subject. But that's probably another discussion..

As I have said before, if FRBR worked in real life, we wouldn't still be 
discussing it in every forum. In the library world, different materials 
get different judgments. If you translate a text to a new language, it's 
the same work, a new expression. If you update a textbook to a new 
edition (but same title and author) it's the same work, a new 
expression. However, the film community considers each new rendering of 
a story as a movie to be a new work (and the director's cut is also a 
new work). In addition, a book and movie cannot be the same work. This, 
of course, has led some to postulate the need for a "super-work."

Honestly, if it worked, we'd be doing it. I'm not terribly hopeful.


>
>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71794143>
>>          a schema:ProductModel ;
>>          x-schema:hasCarrier x-schema:DVD ;
>>          x-schema:commonEndeavor
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)> ;
>>          owl:sameAs <http://isbn.org/isbn/9781419838231>;
>>          .
>>
>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/37633433>
>>          a schema:ProductModel ;
>>          x-schema:hasCarrier x-schema:VHS ;
>>          x-schema:commonEndeavor
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)> ;
>>          owl:sameAs <http://isbn.org/isbn/9780792835844> ;
>>          .
>
> Is this how :commonEndeavor is intended to work? I would have expected
> the proposed :instanceOf to be suitable here, and that :commonEndeavor
> is more for relating two manifestations by implying a common, shared
> abstract notion of a work.

Yes, what you say here is the intention. Here's the use case: you are a 
library and you have two copies of Moby Dick. Your cataloging system 
does not contain an identifier for a work at this moment in time. Rather 
than being forced to find or create a Work description with an IRI, you 
can say: these have essentially the same content. Or your system can be 
smart enough to cluster "like" things for the convenience of the user. 
("That one is checked out. How about this one?") It's a kind of 
"mostLikelySameAs" for the content of creative works. (The ISTC 
identifier,[1] when it proliferates, will give us something more 
precise, but only for texts.) It is purposely vague as a relationship, 
because unless you have digital items and can do a byte-wise compare, 
it's hard to quantify what differences will make a difference to a 
particular user.

It is not unlike what OCLC does with its xISBN service[2], AFAIK, where 
you send in the ISBN for one publisher's product with the text of 
something like Moby Dick and you get back OCLC's best guess of books 
containing the same text but with different ISBNs. It is a set of like 
things, but with no middle, and no identifier for what they have in 
common (the Work or the Expression). It seems to vary from VIAF [3] only 
in this latter manner - VIAF clusters name authority records from 
libraries, with none of them given predominance, but it does create an 
identifier for the cluster. I think that as a practical matter we may 
build the Work as a clustering of manifestations (is this what 
FictionFinder does?)[4], and will give those clusters an IRI, which will 
have a relationship to similar clusters from other libraries or 
communities. Which means that I see the VIAF technique to be one 
possible way to give users the services that FRBR Work promises but 
without having to create a Work "record" for every work out there (which 
is probably getting close to 100 million by now, at least using the OCLC 
studies.)

kc
[1] http://www.istc-international.org/html/
[2] http://www.worldcat.org/affiliate/webservices/xisbn/app.jsp
[3] http://viaf.org
[4] http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/fictionfinder.html

>
> [Edit: I just saw Antoine's reply, and it seems we think basically the
> same things here. :) Posting anyway, to get this on record.]
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:56 AM
>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example
>>>
>>> Jeff, now that you mention this I am struck with grave doubts. ;-) The
>>> Wikipedia URI may be considered to represent the work, as would be
>>> dbpedia URI, but the Wikipedia page is not a commonEndeavor with the
>>> work. This is where we get back to your arguments about 303's -- but
>>> I'm not convinced they save us in this case. The Wikipedia URI
>>> represents the topic AND the page, but can you say that a book is an
>>> "instance" of a Wikipedia URI?
>>>
>>> Too philosophically difficult for Sunday a.m.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>> On 1/26/13 7:30 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>>> Karen,
>>>>
>>>> The thought that a Wikipedia page could be considered to represent
>>> the
>>>> Work has been bugging me for awhile too. I've heard Roy Tennant use
>>>> the term "Ground Truth" when it comes to mapping MARC to BIBFRAME.
>> My
>>>> feeling is that this Wikipedia comparison for Work is a credible
>>>> variant of that.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 2:44 PM
>>>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason, thanks for working on this. CommonEndeavor is a corollary to
>>>> the
>>>>> work/Instance proposal. Work/Instance assumes a hierarchy -- that
>>> you
>>>>> have a Work like "Moby Dick" that is published in many forms, and
>>>>> that you have identifier for that Work that is more abstract than
>>> any
>>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>>> actual publications. For example, a Wikipedia page could be
>>>>> considered to represent the Work, not any of the specific
>>>>> publications. The Instance then is an Instance of that work.
>>>>>
>>>>> In many cases you do not have an identified "thing" for the Work,
>> or
>>>> at
>>>>> least you don't have one handy at the time you are creating the
>>>>> metadata. But you do, for example, have two different publications
>>> of
>>>>> Moby Dick and you know they represent the same content. So
>>>>> "CommonEndeavor" (which may not be a good name for it) is a way of
>>>>> saying that these two things share their creative content.
>>> Eventually
>>>>> these may be able to connect to a work and then they would become
>>>>> instances of that work.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/26/13 11:04 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a URI for this Book? If so it could be used either as the
>>>>>> value of the itemid attribute or as the value of the url property.
>>>> If
>>>>>> itemid is used in the example, then it would remove some blank
>>> nodes
>>>>>> in the RDF output. (Microdata processors that know about the
>>>>>> Schema.org vocabulary should probably treat the url property in
>> the
>>>>>> same way. Schema.org promotes the url property instead of itemid
>>> for
>>>>>> some reason.) Even though the Schema.org examples don't use itemid
>>>>>> there is no reason why we couldn't show better examples that do
>> use
>>>>>> the attribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> There could be a URI for the Books. Actually, there could be more
>>>>> than one for each book since bibliographic data often gets a
>> handful
>>>>> of
>>>>> identifiers: the identifier of the national library that originally
>>>>> created the record, the identifier of OCLC when the record entered
>>>> that
>>>>> database, the identifier of the local library system where the
>>> record
>>>>> currently resides, as well as an ISBN. Which one is "the"
>> identifier
>>>>> that should be the URI for the book is not always clear. I tend to
>>>>> favor the local system number from the system that most recently
>>>>> exposed the bibliographic data as the "subject" URI, with the
>> others
>>>> as
>>>>> additional identifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> All that to say that I can easily make up a URI for each of these
>>>>> items. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If commonEndeavor is a property of CreativeWork then the expected
>>>>> type
>>>>>> (as is given in the Overview section) should be a CreativeWork.
>>>>>> Currently, how this parses is as a list of URLs (since the value
>> of
>>>>> an
>>>>>> itemprop on an a element is the value of the href attribute). So I
>>>>>> think the example is a poor one as it doesn't show how we'd like
>>>> this
>>>>>> to be used. This might in fact be the kind of data that publishers
>>>>> end
>>>>>> up creating, but the example we give should be more correct and
>>> show
>>>>>> more of the expressiveness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid you lost me here. I copied a bunch of stuff from the
>>>>> work/instance page [1] but had trouble fitting it into my example.
>>> If
>>>> I
>>>>> have sufficiently explained the intention, please feel free to make
>>>> the
>>>>> example better. If not, contact me and I'm happy to work with you
>> on
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the CommonEndeavor proposal one that the group is still
>>>>> considering
>>>>>> pursuing?
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe it is still on the table, and so appreciate any work you
>>>> wish
>>>>> to do on it. As I say above, my main goal was to have a horizontal
>>>>> relationship between bibliographic items in addition to the
>> vertical
>>>>> relationship of work/instance, especially when the Work information
>>>>> isn't available (which at the moment it usually isn't). In current
>>>>> library work there are a number of horizontal relationships being
>>>>> considered:
>>>>> - adaptation of (e.g. a book made into a movie; a children's
>> version
>>>> of
>>>>> an adult text)
>>>>> - translation of
>>>>> - arrangement of (for music)
>>>>>
>>>>> etc. CommonEndeavor is kind of a catchall, and the more specific
>>>>> relationships, where known, would be preferable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't feel strongly that we have to include this particular
>>>>> vocabulary term, but I just don't think that we've got the data to
>>>> make
>>>>> much use of the hierarchical relationships at this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> kc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, I can update the example to use the expected type for
>>>>>> this property. I mainly just wanted to give an example of how the
>>>>>> examples could be formatted to make it easier to evaluate them and
>>>>>> show the tools used to generate the output. If there is a desire
>> an
>>>>>> RDFa Lite example with resulting RDF could also be created, though
>>>> it
>>>>>> ought to be very similar to the Microdata one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor#Simple_ex
>>>>> a
>>>>>> mple_showing_HTML_markup
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 02:21:25 UTC