Re: Candidates for the CreativeWork property names vote off

Karen wrote:

> Just for the record, FRBR uses:
> 
> Expression -> realizes -> Work
> Manifestation -> embodies -> Expression
> 
> That's not a vote for or against, just for information.

And in addition FRBR uses:

Item -> exemplifies -> Manifestation


Which, for me, seems to be close to

A -> oneOf -> B

In FRBR thinking, a FRBR:Item indeed is one exemplar of the FRBR:Manifestation as a whole.

So, I myself will not vote for oneOf, I'm afraid.

Best wishes

Reinhold


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. März 2013 00:49
An: Niklas Lindström
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Candidates for the CreativeWork property names vote off



On 3/27/13 4:34 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> I'd like to add:
>
> 10. embodies / embodiedBy

Just for the record, FRBR uses:

Expression -> realizes -> Work
Manifestation -> embodies -> Expression

That's not a vote for or against, just for information.

kc

>
> , representing levels of concretization/abstraction (and hence not
> being symmetric properties). I say "levels" since I think it's ok to
> use it to describe "partial embodiment", such as an "expression" of a
> "work", although it's probably most apt for describing a simpler
> abstract/concrete relation (like "instanceOf" in BibFrame).
>
> Like Karen I prefer simple property names to the "has ..." form in
> general. In schema.org, there is only one such form right now
> (schema:hasPOS), and a bunch of properties as simple verbs in s-form
> (noticeably schema:mentions, which has a domain of
> schema:CreativeWork). I don't know if there is a convention in
> schema.org on inverses (no property is described with owl:inverseOf,
> so it's hard to be sure), but there are three properties ending in
> "By" (schema:affectedBy, schema:musicBy and schema:reviewedBy).
>
> In order to not expand the list of choices too much, how about folding
> 8 and 9 into 1 and 3 respectively, and vote on the form separately?
> (Thus meaning that the alternate form of 2 is "concretizes", 4 is
> "expresses" and so on.)
>
> (Also, I agree with Jeff that avoiding superfluous inverses is a good
> thing, at least in principle. I fear that the world of markup-embedded
> metadata may call for more dirty approaches though, and it seems to be
> a trend to sprinkle a little of everything into the mix without much
> notion of "primary data" nor expectations on consumption (including
> collation and bidirectional statement traversal). We'll see how
> various guidelines develop over time.)
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
> (PS. Once we're settling on something, it's probably wise to declare
> what (if any) relations that suggestion has to DC (e.g. hasFormat),
> BibFrame (instanceOf) and particular properties in the various FRBR
> vocabularies actively used in the wild (including metalex). And
> perhaps what we come up with here will also influence the ongoing
> development of BibFrame.)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> I do think oneOf should be on the list. Also, I'm not fond of the "has..."
>> form of property names. I prefer something that sounds more like a
>> relationship than "has a thing" - So I"d add:
>>
>> 8. instantiates
>> 9. realizes
>>
>> I think that the inverse relationships imply that the relationship be
>> directional, whereas without the inverse the relationship is more open. In
>> fact,
>>
>> A -> oneOf -> B
>> B -> oneOf -> A
>>
>> makes perfect sense to me.
>>
>> Not all of the terms (hasInstance, hasConcretization) can be used in this
>> way, which is why I don't suggest a non-inverse form for each of them.
>> However, we are back to the difference between Work/Instance and
>> "commonEndeavor" (for which Jeff's 'oneOf' would be an interesting
>> substitute).
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/13 1:04 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>>
>>> At the risk of distracting people from my favorite, I would re-offer:
>>>
>>> oneOf
>>>
>>> without an inverse property. There are plenty of properties in
>>> Schema.org that don't have an inverse, so this shouldn't be unusual to
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:58 PM
>>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Candidates for the CreativeWork property names vote off
>>>>
>>>> Following Antoine's suggestion and little consensus as to the names
>>>
>>> for
>>>>
>>>> the CreativeWork properties currently documented as hasInstance &
>>>> isInstanceOf - I am preparing to have a vote on it.
>>>>
>>>> So this is the first part of the process - assembling the candidates.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a few of what I remember having seen and heard in threads and
>>>> discussions - please add others I have missed or that you think of
>>>
>>> over
>>>>
>>>> the next few days.  I will close the candidate list on 31st March.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     1.  hasInstance/instanceOf
>>>>     2.  hasConcretization/concretizationOf
>>>>     3.  hasRealization/relaisationOf
>>>>     4.  hasExpression/expressionOf
>>>>     5.  hasExample/exampleOf
>>>>     6.  hasDerivative/derivativeOf
>>>>
>>>> ~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 Thursday, 28 March 2013 10:41:45 UTC