W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemabibex@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Schema BibEx Proposals - Cannibalizing / Leveraging Dublin Core Object Properties

From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:18:01 +0000
To: "vls@tusco.net" <vls@tusco.net>, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, 'Niklas Lindström' <lindstream@gmail.com>
CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>, "em@zepheira.com" <em@zepheira.com>
Message-ID: <CD753987.2C09%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Thus, using "hasPart" and "isPartOf" is an excellent idea; we're "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater", to use a colloquial phrase.

I agree with, hasPart & isPartOf in particular, and the general principle of trying to avoid domain specific colloquial phrases.


From: Tom Adamich <vls@tusco.net<mailto:vls@tusco.net>>
Organization: Visiting Librarian Service
Reply-To: <vls@tusco.net<mailto:vls@tusco.net>>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:04:23 -0400
To: "'Young,Jeff (OR)'" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>, 'Niklas Lindström' <lindstream@gmail.com<mailto:lindstream@gmail.com>>
Cc: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org<mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>, <public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>, <em@zepheira.com<mailto:em@zepheira.com>>
Subject: Schema BibEx Proposals - Cannibalizing / Leveraging Dublin Core Object Properties

...Well said, Jeff, with regard to cannibalizing / leveraging existing ontology-based structures and vocabulary.  Again, let's tend to work toward being a participating instance in Schema.org rather than disregarding what other disciplines are contributing (yes, the auto parts manufacturers that Karen referenced in one of her messages; they're trying to accomplish similar contextual goals in their space).  Thus, using "hasPart" and "isPartOf" is an excellent idea; we're "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater", to use a colloquial phrase.

I'm sure Eric Miller of Zepheira (principal on the BIBFRAME project) could speak very well to this :

"Until 2007, Eric led the Semantic Web Initiative for the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) at MIT... [He is also] co-founder and Associate Director of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, an open forum engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models.

I’ve taken the liberty to cc him on this message.


Tom Adamich, MLS


Visiting Librarian Service

P.O. Box 932

New Philadelphia, OH 44663



-----Original Message-----
From: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 8:59 PM
To: Niklas Lindström
Cc: Wallis,Richard; public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposals

My feeling is that we should make Schema.org as good and intuitive as possible by canibalizing whatever we can. The intuitive part of reality is going to max out soon enough, after which different domains (including us) can split the rest of reality to infinity in our own namespaces.


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 22, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com<mailto:lindstream@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Richard, all,


> It's great to see this progress!


> However, I do wonder if we shouldn't just import "hasPart" and

> "isPartOf" verbatim from Dublin Core? From the DC Terms vocabulary

> definition:


>  - - - 8< - - -


>    @prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .

>    @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .

>    @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .


>    dct:hasPart a rdf:Property ;

>        rdfs:label "Has Part"@en-US ;

>        rdfs:comment "A related resource that is included either <mailto:%22A%20related%20resource%20that%20is%20included%20either%20%0d%3e%20physically>

> physically or logically in the described resource."@en-US<mailto:%22A%20related%20resource%20that%20is%20included%20either%20%0d%3e%20physically> ;

>        rdfs:isDefinedBy dct: ;

>        rdfs:subPropertyOf dct:relation .


>    dct:isPartOf a rdf:Property ;

>        rdfs:label "Is Part Of"@en-US ;

>        rdfs:comment "A related resource in which the described <mailto:%22A%20related%20resource%20in%20which%20the%20described%20%0d%3e%20resource%20>

> resource is physically or logically included."@en-US<mailto:%22A%20related%20resource%20in%20which%20the%20described%20%0d%3e%20resource%20> ;

>        rdfs:isDefinedBy dct: ;

>        rdfs:subPropertyOf dct:relation .


>  - - - >8 - - -


> These terms have been used for many years in all kinds of situations,

> proving that their open-ended definitions (no specific domain nor

> range) make them applicable for e.g.:


> * collections of items (like a trilogy, or a sales offer)

> * books and chapters (a pattern recommended by e.g.

> <http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/>)

> * serials

> * compositions of physical things

> * .. etc.


> I would recommend to explicitly "import" these. (Same definitions in

> prose; using Thing for both domain and range. And explicitly link to

> them in the proposal.) The specific "nature" of the composition can

> often be determined by the types of the things in the hasPart/isPartOf

> relation. (And anything more specific can be defined by making a

> subproperty of these properties in turn, by more specific vocabularies

> than schema.org.)


> We could also do the same with

> <http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection>. In fact, cherry-picking from

> Dublin Core would make sense for us in general (as it is a generic,

> well-known and widely used vocabulary).


> .. Alas, the schema.org "import" practice doesn't yet state relations

> to these commonly known terms from other vocabularies (leaving this up

> to e.g. <http://schema.rdfs.org/> after the fact – i.e. when semantic

> divergence may already have happened). I still recommend to always

> explicitly do so whenever possible. My hope is that this will be

> expressed directly at the RDF level at some point. (Of course, were it

> not for the current popularity and easiness of the schema.org "one

> size fits all", I would recommend to just use DC terms directly.)


> (Personally, I am very wary of "babelization". My engagement in RDF

> partly stems from the pain of working in the IT industry where

> gratuitous reinvention is commonplace (resulting in *massive* waste

> and lost interoperability), so I am rather vigilant on this point. ;)

> Though yes, I know that the value of doing such coordination can be

> debated too, and that semantic drift can result by ill-informed

> "repurposing" of terms. But by being precise, such misuse is much

> simpler to detect.)


> Cheers,

> Niklas



> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:

>> Following yesterday's meeting:



>>  *   Citation<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Citation> – Proposed to the public-vocabs list <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/>.

>>  *   Parts<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Parts> – Merged into Collection.

>>  *   Collection<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection> – Updated to include Parts examples & wording.  Now ready for proposing to public-vocabs, in about a week.

>>  *   Work-Instance – Following conversation on list after the meeting I have renamed the proposal to CreativeWork Relationships<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeWork_Relationships> and tweaked the wording a little, but have not yet changed 'instance' to 'derivative' - see following email.  - Hopefully we can still propose this in a couple of weeks time.


>> ~Richard.






Received on Sunday, 24 March 2013 23:18:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:20 UTC