- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:58:18 -0700
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Thanks, Phil. That makes it clearer. Perhaps the definition could include the term "derivative"? I ask because in the schema-bibExtend group [1] we are talking about a class called "collection" [2] which is a common concept in library and archival data. Collection does imply the whole/part. This suggests that isPartOf would need to be promoted to CreativeWork or even Thing. kc [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Main_Page [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection On 4/6/13 9:05 AM, Phil Barker wrote: > > Hello Karen, isBasedOn came from the LRMI work that I was involved in. > The intention was that be used to indicate a relationship such as an > adaptation or derivative work (think of the things that aren't allowed > by the Creative Commons No Derivative license), not a simple whole/part > relationship such as the example you give. > > Curiously enough isPartOf is a property for web pages but not other > creative works in Schema. > > Phil > > On 06/04/13 15:54, Karen Coyle wrote: >> Thanks, Dan. Great when things, work, eh? I compared the previous and >> current versions of CreativeWork (the hiccup allowed me to grab the >> version being replaced) -- and have a question about isBasedOnUrl, >> which is defined as: >> >> " A resource that was used in the creation of this resource. This term >> can be repeated for multiple sources. For example, >> http://example.com/great-multiplication-intro.html" >> >> Unfortunately, the example isn't clear to me, so my question is: is >> this a part/whole relationship (e.g. essay or chapter in a book; one >> volume of the LOR trilogy in a boxed set) or is it a transformative >> relationship (e.g. book that was made into a movie)? >> >> Thanks, >> kc >> >> On 4/5/13 9:16 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: >>> And we're back. Apologies for the hiccup! >>> >>> On 5 April 2013 01:48, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >>>> Excuse this brief note; I'll write more in a week. We've just >>>> published a revision to schema.org including substantial new >>>> vocabulary that improves >>>> >>>> The new version is numbered 1.0a indicating that this is approaching a >>>> full 1.0 release but that we still have a few additions to make before >>>> we declare we're at a full 1.0. >>>> >>>> The 1.0a additions are considered stable, but we will fix any bugs or >>>> problems that implementors encounter during this 'soft release'. >>>> Additions include the Datasets vocabulary, LRMI for >>>> education/learning, technical publishing vocabulary, more vocabulary >>>> for describing Audiences, and some supporting utility terms for >>>> describing schema.org types, properties and their inter-relationships. >>>> >>>> I won't attempt here to list everyone who contributed to these new >>>> additions (it deserves a blog post), but thanks for all your hard work >>>> and patience. There are plenty more additions still in the pipeline >>>> and I look forward to following this announcement with work towards a >>>> 1.0b update. In the meantime please share any feedback, issues etc on >>>> the WebSchemas and LRMI lists. >>>> >>>> http://schema.org/docs/full.html as always has pointers to the full >>>> vocabulary. >>>> For LRMI, http://schema.org/AlignmentObject is the main type, >>>> alongside additions to http://schema.org/CreativeWork >>>> For Datasets, we added http://schema.org/Dataset and some nearby >>>> types... >>>> >>>> Dan >>> >>> >> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 16:58:51 UTC