W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Suggestion for new category

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:18:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz4FKp66NUxvGSjTY-MeSVaFXXV1z=8y1mFzg86pc4exVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete Rivett <pete.rivett@adaptive.com>
Cc: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>, "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, "Han, Myung-Ja" <mhan3@illinois.edu>, "Sarol, Maria Janina" <mjsarol@illinois.edu>, "Kinnaman, Alex Olivia" <kinnama2@illinois.edu>, "Cole, Timothy W" <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
add Person as an additional type on *characterName*).


That seems a simple and effective move worth proposing.

~Richard

On 3 March 2016 at 23:06, Pete Rivett <pete.rivett@adaptive.com> wrote:

> How do we represent that a play has characters e.g. Romeo, and that in a
> production/performance a specific person plays that character?
>
> I see in schema.org that:
>
> a)      Person can be used for a fictional character as well as a real
> person. So Romeo can be modeled as a Person linked using the *character*
> property from CreativeWork.
>
> b)      We can use PerformanceRole between Play and Person to represent
> the character that person plays (in the same way you use Carpenter in your
> example)
>
> However PerformanceRole has *characterName* as only a Text property:
> there seems no way of identifying/linking to the fictional Person
> representing the character Romeo in the play Romeo and Juliet. It seems
> there should be a property *characterPlayed* of type Person (or add
> Person as an additional type on * characterName*).
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 3, 2016 1:44 PM
> *To:* Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* public-schemaorg@w3.org; Han, Myung-Ja <mhan3@illinois.edu>; Sarol,
> Maria Janina <mjsarol@illinois.edu>; Kinnaman, Alex Olivia <
> kinnama2@illinois.edu>; Cole, Timothy W <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Suggestion for new category
>
>
>
> I think we are conflating 3 separate aspects here.
>
>
>
> Firstly the relationship between a play, a production(s) of that play, and
> individual performance(s) of a production.  I think the suggestion of using
> CreativeWorkSeries “a group of related items, typically but not
> necessarily of the same kind” is maybe leading us off at a tangent.  The
> series approach is often used for things like The *Harry Potter series of
> movies*, or the *For Dummies Book series*.   The production(s) of a play
> are not normally a series they are different creative interpretations of
> the play.   To that end I see a production as its own CreativeWork(play
> subtype) that is an example of the original creative work (Play subtype).
>
>
>
> A production is performed one or more times at individual performance
> ‘events’ these could possibly collected together into a season/run/festival
> - an event with individual subEvents
>
>
>
>
>
> Next we have the relationship between the Play/CreativeWork and other
> creative works that contribute to, or are associated with, but not part of
> the work - as per the example of stage notes.  Eric’s suggestion of using
> ‘mention’ or ‘about’ is a step in the right direction but I agree it does
> not quite capture what is needed.  What if there was a ‘relatedWork’ or
> ‘associatedWork’ property available on CreativeWork?
>
>
>
> Then there is the issue of how to describe the different types of
> contributors/performers associated with a CreativeWork beyond the common
> ones that already are defined, such as actor, author, director, composer,
> etc.   In proposing a Play type there is the option to propose some play
> relevant properties.  Director, choreographer, conductor, are potential
> candidates but, in a generic vocabulary such as Schema.org, how far down
> the production team list is it practical to go?  What about carpenter, wigs
> mistress, chief electrician, etc.?
>
>
>
> When you move beyond a few common jobs that might make sense to add to
> Play, we need to look at using the Role <http://schema.org/Role>
> construct:
>
>
>
> Play:
>
>    > name: “The Tempest”
>
>    > contributor: > Role:
>
>                         > roleName: “Carpenter”
>
>                         > contributor >  Person:
>
>                                             > name: “Joe Soap”
>
>
>
> For more on Role see The role of Role in Schema.org
> <http://dataliberate.com/2015/04/15/the-role-of-role-in-schema-org/>.
>
>
>
> So as to a proposal for Play oriented properties, we should constrain
> ourselves to a few obvious ones, defaulting to using Role as we get further
> down the credit list - as the Movie folks do.
>
>
>
> Finally a question as to the narrowness of what is being
> discussed/proposed.   Are we (or could we) covering other live show
> possibilities?  Musical, Concert, Variety Show, Comedy Club Night, Cabaret,
> Opera,  are all possibilities that come to mind.
>
>
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
> Richard Wallis
>
> Founder, Data Liberate
>
> http://dataliberate.com
>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>
> Twitter: @rjw
>
>
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 18:50, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> Still missing the concern. The example is more like this:
>
>
>
>    - Amelia: Mourning is a VisualArtwork A1
>
>
>    - A1 has a genre of costume design drawings
>
>
>    - Vanity Fair is a Play (which would presumably be a subtype of
>    Creative Work but which does not yet exist in the schema vocab.) P1 (from
>    here we could proceed as Richard has in his example but far better is
>    Jeff's suggestion to use Creative Work Series)
>
>
>    - workExample P2
>
>
>    - The 2016 production of P1 is a Play Series (non-existing subtype for
>    Creative Work Series) P2
>
>
>    - P2 starts on date of 4-Jan
>       - P2 ends on date of 29-Feb
>
>
>    - The 4-Jan 7:15 performance of P2 is a Theatrical Event E1
>
>
>    - workPerformed P2
>
> The problem is that schema lacks vocabulary to link A1 to P2 (or even to
> E1). We could potentially use the mentions predicate that Eric suggests but
> the definition of mentions does not match the actual role that A1 plays in
> P2. And so we need some properties that are missing and that could be
> attached to either P2 or E1.
>
>
>
> In addition to the (pre)visualizations and stage notes, I'm also missing a
> good way to distinguish between dancers and actors and also between
> directors, conductors, and choreographers. Nominally I could group them all
> using the performer or organizer (respectively) predicates and then
> differentiate among them using roles. But since I have many instances of
> each this leads to an explosion of 'Event performer Person role Role'
> sub-graphs. Better would be if I could define actor and dancer
> sub-properties for performer and similarly director, choreographer and
> conductor sub-properties for organizer and thereby limit the growth of my
> triples.
>
>
>
> A complication that Tim has pointed out is that the properties of events
> and entities in schema do not seem to be distinct but rather overlap
> leading to awkward situations where I'm potentially listing the performers
> and other property objects in multiple places (i.e., they are weirdly
> shared between an entity and an event even though the entity takes part in
> the event and so presumably we'd already have the information in hand from
> the entity). The point being is where a Creative Work Series ends and an
> Event begins is difficult to see (or even where a Creative Work ends and an
> Event begins). And as always in this case A1 is the entity of chief import.
> Relating events and other creative works back to it is the goal.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Jacob Jett
> Research Assistant
> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> (217) 244-2164
> jjett2@illinois.edu
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Richard Wallis <
> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>
> Shooting from the hip on this - which is where some worked through
> examples would help….
>
>
>
> I would see:
>
>    - Hamlet by Will Shakespeare to be a Play (subtype of CreativeWork) -
>    P1
>
>
>    - - workExample P2
>
>
>    - The 2016 production of Hamlet from the RSC to be a Play P2
>
>
>    - - exampleOfWork P1
>
>
>    - The 2016 Season of Hamlet at Stratford-upon-avon to be an Event - E1
>
>
>    - - workPerformed P2
>       - - subEvent E2
>
>
>    - The March 12th 7:15pm performance to be an Event E2
>
>
>    - - workPerformed P2
>       - - superEvent E1
>
> ~Richard
>
>
>
>
> Richard Wallis
>
> Founder, Data Liberate
>
> http://dataliberate.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dataliberate.com&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=ipmzdTzMNJCMUZuxn7gGcQEFS4CL1VTdxuaP3GOL_b0&s=NNhB2CGYGQzhOgLJ_7IybJIqb7wG-AfOrprPI6rD7gM&e=>
>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_richardwallis&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=ipmzdTzMNJCMUZuxn7gGcQEFS4CL1VTdxuaP3GOL_b0&s=4tldo-QlzoS67SqUHty0wYcrfNx4FUWQZa0egoo3l2A&e=>
>
> Twitter: @rjw
>
>
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 15:49, Pete Rivett <pete.rivett@adaptive.com> wrote:
>
> So would a production be an Event (with start and end dates representing
> the whole run) with the performances on specific days as subEvents?
>
> [I guess this is akin to a movie being shown at the same theater for 2
> weeks].
>
>
>
> Can one rely on properties (such as workPerformed, location, performer,
> duration) being derived from the superEvent (production) without needing to
> be repeated for each subEvent (performance)?
>
>
>
> BTW it seems that the property firstPerformance is too restrictively typed
> to MusicComposition. Given that workPerformed has type CreativeWork, then
> surely firstPerformance should be a property of CreativeWork.
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 3, 2016 7:19 AM
> *To:* Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* public-schemaorg@w3.org; Myung-Ja Han <mhan3@illinois.edu>; Sarol,
> Maria Janina Dela Cruz <mjsarol@illinois.edu>; Kinnaman, Alex Olivia <
> kinnama2@illinois.edu>; Cole, Timothy W <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Suggestion for new category
>
>
>
> You are right to identify the differences between ‘the play’, productions
> of the play, and performances of the production.
>
>
>
> Much of the structure of this is availably via CreativeWork properties
> such as hasPart, isPartOf, exampleOfWork, workExample, plus the temporal
> aspects of Role that would allow you to associate individual contributors
> to specific stages of the process.
>
>
>
> Based upon established Schema.org patterns, I would advise separating the
> event (place/time) aspects from the Creative aspects.
>
>
>
> As to associating elements of the process that contributed to the combined
> work, but not part of the final play - I think that is down to how you
> describe those individual preproduction parts.
>
>
>
> Working on some examples as was done for Books, Articles, TVSeries &
> TVSeason, etc. would help work through these questions and help support a
> proposal for a Play type
>
>
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
>
>
> Richard Wallis
>
> Founder, Data Liberate
>
> http://dataliberate.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dataliberate.com&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=ipmzdTzMNJCMUZuxn7gGcQEFS4CL1VTdxuaP3GOL_b0&s=NNhB2CGYGQzhOgLJ_7IybJIqb7wG-AfOrprPI6rD7gM&e=>
>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_richardwallis&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=ipmzdTzMNJCMUZuxn7gGcQEFS4CL1VTdxuaP3GOL_b0&s=4tldo-QlzoS67SqUHty0wYcrfNx4FUWQZa0egoo3l2A&e=>
>
> Twitter: @rjw
>
>
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 14:54, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> That makes perfect sense. However, if we go the 'isPartOf' route don't we
> loose the contextual component that set and costume sketches and
> photographs play in the development of the production? I.e., they are not
> parts of the finished work -- the play -- per se but are deeply involved in
> the evolution of a performance of the final product.
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense if they were parts of particular Theatrical
> Events, as just like the performers of said events, costumes and set
> designs can also vary from performance to performance of the same play.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Jacob Jett
> Research Assistant
> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> (217) 244-2164
> jjett2@illinois.edu
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Richard Wallis <
> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>
> Not wishing to overload CreativeWork in the subtypes department, but
> ‘Play’ does seem to be an obvious missing candidate.
>
>
>
> I don’t really think the ’Stage’ qualification is necessary. Most of the
> properties you reference would be inherited from CreativeWork.  The
> exceptions being some of the more specific contributors such as
> StageDesigner and WadrobeKeeper.   These could be handled as per some of
> the roles in the movie industry are - using the Role
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schema.org_Role&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=5tMndZFeOWtA7vej-9XwBZdhVTmH18Mj5t17yfmtpCo&s=5O53HrBuYZ2xJ8k-qXNdxOWXiTOMowrhAlGWPP953a8&e=>
> construct.
>
>
>
> You could then connect the individual performances to the Play using
> TheaterEvent if appropriate using the workPerformed property.
>
>
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 14:27, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> We have a similar use case but also need to account for things like
> costume sketches and photographs (and same for storyboards, set designs,
> etc.). Should we just extend the TheaterEvent with new predicates?
>
>
>
> Most if not all of those things would be CreativeWorks or subtypes
> thereof, in their own right and could be considered ‘isPartOf’ of the play.
>
>
>
> ~Richard
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Tim Turner <tturner@flumc.org> wrote:
>
> There is a TheaterEvent that could be expanded from this list.
>
> https://schema.org/TheaterEvent
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schema.org_TheaterEvent&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=5tMndZFeOWtA7vej-9XwBZdhVTmH18Mj5t17yfmtpCo&s=aa63bKAMCvVjSnfsJFaXpaSAqbwat8spFGjc7owW85E&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* Webmestre Globetrottoirs [mailto:webmaster@globetrottoirs.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 02, 2016 1:05 PM
> *To:* public-schemaorg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Suggestion for new category
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am working on a theater group website.
>
>
>
> When trying to code micro-data, I felt that the following schema is
> missing.
>
>
>
> In the “Creativework” schema, could we add “TheaterPlay”, which would have
> the following properties :
>
>
>
> *Name* – expected type : text – description : the name of the play
>
> *Author* – expected type : text – description : the author of the play
>
> *Director* – expected type : text – description : the person who directed
> the play
>
> *Actor* – expected type : text – description : the actors of the play
>
> *Character* – expected type : text – description : the characters of the
> play
>
> *Composer* – expected type : text – description : the composer of the
> music used in the play
>
> *Genre* – expected type : text – description : the genre of the play (eg
> : musical theatre, gesture theatre, pantomime, …)
>
> *StageDesigner* – expected type : text – description : the person who
> designed the settings
>
> *WardrobeKeeper* – expected type : text – description : the person who
> designed or created the wardrobe.
>
>
>
> It could be also usefull to create schema related to dance or mime, etc…
>
>
>
> Do you think it is possible to do this ?
>
>
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
>
>
> Sincerely.
>
>
>
> Stéphane Reboul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 23:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 March 2016 23:19:23 UTC