- From: Ross Singer <rxs@talis.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:58:14 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:53 AM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: > One of the things that may be messing with our heads is the desire to > name inverse properties. I think there are plenty of times in natural > language where we have a perfectly sensible way to express a > relationship in one direction that seems awkward in the inverse. Is that > part of the problem? If so, we should keep in mind that inverse > relationships are more of a convenience than a necessity in RDF. > Well, yes, for RDF this is generally true, I'm not sure it holds as well if you think of it in the context of linked data. After all, if you're following your nose, the lack of bidirectional relationships means that a resource basically might as well not exist from a certain route. -Ross. > Jeff > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] >> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:45 AM >> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org >> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf >> >> Richard, the first part of your message: >> >> On 3/25/13 3:42 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote: >>> In my model I am thinking of several strict definitions of work, and >>> none >>> - that is the way of the broad generic world that Schema is trying > to >>> serve. >>> >>> So one set of 'rules' or school of though may say that Story & >>> Story-in-English are the same Work others may not. 'We' can define >>> what a Work and an Instance are but we are not in the position to >>> impose that on the whole web. >>> >>> In answer to your implied 'how are you defining Work and Instance' >>> question - I say 'however you like'. The Schema vocabulary should > be >>> able to describe both the BIBFRAME and Alan Renear's view equally >> well. >>> >> >> defies this second part. If we don't have definitions for Work and >> Instance then there is no way to do what you say below -- you can't >> align things with other things that are not defined. Yes, it is a >> working definition, but without a working definition we have nothing > to >> propose. And, in fact, every property in schema.org has a definition. >> >> The definition there now, and the example, leads to certain >> conclusions: >> >> "Instance/realization/derivation of the concept of this creative work. >> eg. The paperback edition." >> >> This is very specific, and has within it some strong assumptions about >> CW. Is this what we want? Can we explore how it would be used with CW >> to interact with other models? (btw, "isOneOf" is making a lot of > sense >> to me now). >> >> kc >> >> >>> Once we have proposed a generic way to describe relationships > between >>> things that can be described as Creative works, I believe we have a >> place >>> to identify good practice in how we wold describe FRBR >>> Works/Expressions/Manifestations/Items, BIBFRAME Works/Instances, > and >>> other well used domain specific entities using this generic >> vocabulary. >>> >>> ~Richard. >>> >>> On 25/03/2013 01:14, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Richard, regarding your model, I think it depends much on how Work >> is >>>> defined. If Work is defined the way it is in BIBFRAME, then: >>>> >>>> Story >>>> Story in English >>>> >>>> are part of bibframe:Work, and the story in English is not an >> instance >>>> of the story. Instance comes into use only when the Work comes into >>>> being (in the "realization" sense). As I understand it, BIBFRAME >>>> separates the abstract from the concrete. [1] So maybe we should >> define >>>> what we mean by Work and Instance, and then look again at the terms >> we >>>> use for them. >>>> >>>> kc >>>> [1] However, if you read Alan Renear's work on FRBR, you may be of >> the >>>> school that only frbr:Item has physicality, the others are >> abstractions. >>>> Neither FRBR nor BIBFRAME feel entirely satisfactory, I must say, >> but do >>>> I have something better? Nope. >>>> >>>> On 3/24/13 5:34 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote: >>>>> I am not a massive fan of instanceOf and hasInstance either. >>>>> >>>>> But applying my test to creativeInstanceOf we get: >>>>> >>>>> * Story-in-English is a creativeInstanceOf Story - That > sort >> of >>>>> works >>>>> * Story-in-book-in-library is a creativeInstanceOf >>>>> Story-in-pbk-book - That doesn't really work. Just stocking in a >>>>> library is not really a creative act. >>>>> >>>>> The works themselves are creative, not the relationships between >> them. >>>>> >>>>> ~Richard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> >>>>> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:47:58 -0400 >>>>> To: Richard Wallis >>>>> <richard.wallis@oclc.org<mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>> >>>>> Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>, >>>>> <public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>> >>>>> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf >>>>> >>>>> I could have beec clearer, but"isRecordOf" was intended as a joke. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding, "isInstanceOf", I'm reminded that GoodRelations has >>>>> gr:Individual, which is disorienting for reasons similar to >> "instance". >>>>> When GoodRelations integrated with Schema.org<http://Schema.org>, >> this >>>>> got translated to schema:IndividualProduct, which is less >> offensive. >>>>> Perhaps we should consider a similar hair split in this case with >>>>> schemap:creativeInstanceOf. >>>>> >>>>> I have to say I absolutely hate instanceOf. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:28 PM, "Wallis,Richard" >>>>> <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My formatting got screwed by the email system, so I attach a >> screenshot >>>>> of >>>>> what I intended. >>>>> >>>>> ~Richard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24/03/2013 23:14, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I tend to hold the same suspicions as Antoine as to the content > of >>>>>> those >>>>>> 'few drinks'. I believe your wife was nearer with oneOf. > However, >> I'm >>>>>> not >>>>>> sure either convey the meaning of the generic relationship we are >>>>>> trying >>>>>> to achieve. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally the test I apply to these is to imagine a set of 3 or >> more >>>>>> CreativeWorks thus: >>>>>> >>>>>>> hasInstance >hasInstance >hasInstance >>>>>>> hasInstance >>>>>> / \ / \ / \ >>>>>> / \ >>>>>> Story Story-in-English Story-in-Book >>>>>> Story-in-pbk-book story-in-book-in-library >>>>>> \ / \ / \ / >>>>>> \ / >>>>>> isInstanceOf< isInstanceOf< isInstanceOf< >>>>>> isInstanceOf< >>>>>> >>>>>> I know this is stretching it a bit, but doing this tends to >> highlight >>>>>> where focussing in on individual use-cases hides where things are >> not >>>>>> appropriate elsewhere. In the above example I believe 'instance' >>>>>> works as >>>>>> a broad compromise, where as 'record', 'derivation', > 'expression', >>>>>> 'realisation', and others seem to possibly work better in one > area >> but >>>>>> much worse in others. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~Richard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24/03/2013 12:25, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The thing I like about UNIMARC Authorities is that they have the >>>>>>> notion >>>>>>> of a "primary entity" which is the thing the record represents. >> If you >>>>>>> look in the same places in MARC21 Authorities you'll find a >> tautology. >>>>>>> :-/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:58 AM, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not sure I prefer these ones... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PS: "record", really? Did your glasses contain MARC brandy? ;-) >>>>>>>> (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_%28eau-de-vie%29) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I described the general situation to my wife and she suggested >> the >>>>>>>>> alternative: "oneOf". Hmm. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After a few more drinks, we finally agreed on "isRecordOf". > ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:26 AM, >>>>>>>>> >> "Wallis,Richard"<Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.o >>>>>>>>> rg>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have renamed the Work-Instance proposal to a more generic >>>>>>>>>> CreativeWork >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> Relationships<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeW >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> k >>>>>>>>>> _Relationships> to remove the associations with those words > in >>>>>>>>>> FRBR, >>>>>>>>>> BIBFRAME etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In yesterday's meeting we suggested that instanceOf& >> hasInstance >>>>>>>>>> should be renamed to derivativeOf& hasDerivative. However >>>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>>> on list has moved away from that idea so I have left it as is >> for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> moment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suggest we try some more examples and look at the wording. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think we have general agreement about the need for these >>>>>>>>>> properties. It is the names we need to settle, and > appropriate >>>>>>>>>> examples to test them against and use for explanation in the >>>>>>>>>> proposal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ~Richard >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 Monday, 25 March 2013 17:05:56 UTC