RE: InstanceOf/derivativeOf

Are you saying that Linked Data should be constrained so that DBpedia is
allowed to use dbpedia URIs as subjects in RDF statements? 

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Singer [mailto:rxs@talis.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 12:58 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
> 
> 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 18:05:34 UTC