RE: InstanceOf/derivativeOf

I agree that follow-your-nose is a feature of Linked Data, but I don't
think we should be overly concerned that some statements we employ
aren't there or even on the wrong end of the nose. For example, if I
want to publish an RDF statement saying that I am employed by OCLC, I
should be able to use VIAF URIs without having to coin alias URIs and
use those instead. I agree this it would be ideal in some ways because
then I'm also playing by the follow-your-nose principle, but it also
creates a burden in various ways.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Singer [mailto:rxs@talis.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:22 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
> 
> I'm not saying anything like that, as far as I know.  All I'm saying
is
> that, when following your nose, one way relationships are only
> discoverable, well... one way.
> 
> Obviously with one to many relationships (especially when the many can
> be the many millions, a la dbpedia URIs or subject headings, etc.),
> this doesn't necessarily scale, so inverse relationships can't be used
> for everything, but they are useful when they exist.
> 
> -Ross.
> 
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:05 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
wrote:
> 
> > 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 18:56:02 UTC