W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Move isPartOf to CreativeWork from WebPage?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:56:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrsXM0KqnCD=4UkPToXBRuN8YDQAYdz4OZ0ybAjCndZJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: lrmi@googlegroups.com
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 28 September 2012 20:21, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> Hi there,
> As more in the educational community begin marking up their content with
> LRMI / Schema.org we have run into a couple limitations of Schema.org.
> [Note: I have cc'd the LRMI community mailing list.]
> One oddity is the isPartOf property that lives in the WebPage type
> (which is a subtype of CreativeWork).
> The isPartOf expected type is CollectionPage, which, has two subtypes
> ImageGallery and VideoGallery.
> It appears that, from this, the isPartOf property is limited to use in
> only galleries of images or videos (but, oddly, don't mix them!).
> Would it make sense instead to make isPartOf live on CreativeWork?
> Use Case for the change:
> In the educational community, there are many times collections of
> resources (everything from specific courses, to whole curricula, to
> everything between and beyond) and these resources are not all webpages.
> They include other media (eg: presentation files, videos, documents,
> etc).
> Thus, you could imagine a simple use case of a class syllabus that is
> itself a collection with many resources linked from it (either living at
> the same webspace or not). For pages under the control of the same
> entity, modifying the resources to also include the isPartOf ->
> Collection information is useful to model the syllabus.
> It might then be advantageous to include a "hasPart" in CollectionPage
> type.
> Summary:
>  - move isPartOf from WebPage to CreativeWork

I'd support this, and it will bring us into line with the same term
used in the Dublin Core community,

>  - add hasPart to CollectionPage

I'm conflicted; it seems useful but I'm wary of introducing inverses
casually, and for only some of our terms.

I guess we should ask: what's the status of 'rev=' in the HTML work?
Is it just too confusing usability-wise anyway? Older XHTML-based RDFa
syntaxes used to have 'rev=' but I remember the HTML5 community were
not enthusiastic.

Re Charlie's point, there might be a case to raise it even up to
'Thing', although I am a a bit wary of that, as e.g. the expert-filled
Ontolog forum is still debating different senses of 'isPartOf', see
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-09/threads.html ...
and I don't really want to see huge debates here about whether
isPartOf for medical entities (see http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html
) are 'part of' in the same sense as Web pages, sites and books have
parts. Some topics can be argued about for eternity!



> Thoughts?
> Greg
> --
> Greg Grossmeier
> Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
> twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 18:56:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:25 UTC