- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:34:26 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
> > Hi Richard, > > OK, good to know you're tracking this--and thanks. So we'll need more discussion in the coming weeks then? The main factor here was to comment on the accessAdaptation side of things for the accessibility folks so that it didn’t conflict with with the bibliographic view of what an adaptation might be. As to further discussion, I would suggest that we use contentAdaptation as our starting point. > > Btw thanks for the link > http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Schema_CreativeWork_Relationships > I didn't remember where this page was--it's not accessible from > http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals Just spotted that - will link it to somewhere once I get on a network I trust for more than just email. ~Richard. > > Antoine > > >> Hi Antoine, >> >> When we propose these changes they should be in relation to the list of potential CreativeWork relationship properties <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Schema_CreativeWork_Relationships>, previously discussed on public-vocabs (which would need updating). Noting previous comments about discussing the core property names, worrying about directionally separately. >> >> I would update my email to reflect this, and to fix the spelling mistakes. >> >> >> ~Richard >> >> On 27 Nov 2013, at 16:20, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard, all, >>> >>> I'm sorry I've missed so many discussions lately... >>> >>> But before sending this to public-vocabs I'd have one extra question. Has the relationship between these 'adaptations' and our work relations been discussed too? >>> Looking at >>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeWork_Relationships >>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor >>> >>> In other words, *and ignoring the direction of the properties for now* (makes the discussion easier!): are either of accessAdaptation or contentAdaptation specializations of commonEndeavour or workExample? >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> >>> >>>> Following our discussions in the last meeting, I include below a draft email to the public-vocabs list for comment before I send it to that list. >>>> >>>> ~Richard >>>> >>>> One of the issues dropped from the accepted Accessibility proposal, for further discussion <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/ToDo>, was the definition of the properties hasAdaptation & isAdaptionOf. They were noted as to be handled by the SchemaBibEx <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/> group. >>>> >>>> The main concern was the potential ambiguity that would arise from the simple use of the term ‘Adaption’. In the Accessibility domain it inferred that the format/representation of the content has been adapted for accessibility reasons. In the bibliographic/creative works domain, an adaption is one where the content has been changed/interpreted in a different way. There is also potential for format-adaptions of a content-adaption of an original creative work. >>>> >>>> The schemabibEx group discussed this in our recent meeting and came up with the following proposals: >>>> >>>> * accessAdaption - URL - Identifier of a resource that is an adaptation, for accessibility purposes, for this resource. >>>> * accessAdaptionOf - URL - Identifier of a resource for which this is an adaptation for accessibility purposes. >>>> * contentAdaption - CreativeWork - An adaptation of the content of this work. >>>> * contentAdaptionOf - CreativeWork - A work that the content of this work is adapted from. >>>> >>>> >>>> ~Richard >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 16:35:02 UTC