W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Proposal: Collection

From: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 03:40:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CACfEFw_Wwn9H__1ocYmastWop1nSfkQpA0yJ_DzAK8wPFJoATA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
> Subject to feedback,

Thanks!

> Perhaps even saying that they're owl:equivalentProperty

Would owl:equivalentProperty be accurate?

Or, would `schema:isPartOf` be mappable to `dcterms:isPartOf`? [1]

In OWL, `dcterms:isPartOf` is an `owl:AnnotationProperty` [3][4].

How would the `rdfs:range` and `rdfs:domain` restrictions map over? [2][5]

Why even restrict the `rdfs:range`?

Do we need to infer that the (super-)type of an `schema:isPartOf`
object is `schema:CreativeWork`?

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf
[2] http://bloody-byte.net/rdf/dc_owl2dl/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#AnnotationProperty-def
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#owl_AnnotationProperty
[5] http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/16310/using-rdfsrange-in-owlannotationproperty-and-owl-dl-validation/16323
--
Wes Turner


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> Taking on the brief discussion, I have adjusted the text of this proposal
> a little.
>
> Although, to broaden its applicability, the isPartOf property may best be
> added to Thing, the proposal currently proposes it as a CreativeWork
> property.
>
> Subject to feedback, and adding a markup example, I will post this on to
> the WebSchemas Wiki in the next few days.
>
> ~Richard.
>
> On 07/05/2013 16:09, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
>
>>Here are some thoughts about Dan's question of the difference between
>>Collection and Class. In a sense, this is splitting an arbitrary hair
>>because both are identifiable sets of individuals. I think there are a
>>few ways to decide, but ultimately it's probably a matter of perspective
>>and intuition.
>>
>>Perhaps one way to decide the art is to ask whether the individuals have
>>properties that are peculiar to them being in the my:Foo set or not. If
>>there are such properties, then my:Foo should be a Class so it can act as
>>a domain/range on those properties. Another criteria could be whether
>>my:Foo makes sense as a subclass/superclass of another Class in the model.
>>
>>Whether my:Foo can be a schema:Class AND a schema:Collection boils down
>>to DL or not to DL. I like to be careful about those things, but I can
>>cope with people who aren't.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:11 AM
>>> To: Dan Brickley
>>> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Proposal: Collection
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Is this specifically library-like or cultural heritage notion of a
>>> >collection? Or is it a general purpose data structure for listing
>>> >bundles of things? My suspicion is that it's the latter, but it could
>>> >easily be mistaken for a very general purpose mechanism.
>>>
>>> You suspect correctly.  The need/approach has come the library and
>>> associated worlds, but it is clearly applicable in a wider context.
>>>
>>> A library has a collection of books, a museum has a collection of
>>> artefacts, etc.   However a farmer could have a collection of animals
>>>
>>> By making Collection a subclass of CreativeWork it does imply that the
>>> creation of a collection would be a conscious creative act by a
>>> creating person/organization.
>>>
>>> However the parts of a collection would not always be creative works
>>> themselves (fossils in a museum, toys and books in a children's
>>> library,
>>> etc.) hense the need for isPart to be added to Thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >If there's a bibliographic / cultural heritage problem we can solve
>>> >here, while avoiding getting into heavier 'theory of parts' territory
>>> >(e.g. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/Mereotopology.pdf)
>>> >I'd be happy...
>>>
>>> I have equal aversion to diving down such deep dark rabbit holes!
>>>
>>> Would we not avoid that by indicating that a Thing can be part of many
>>> collections or none, a Collection can contain zero or any parts that
>>> may or may not be in other Collections - or am I being naive? ;-)
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>> >
>>> >Dan
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Sub-classed to: Thing > CreativeWork > Collection Properties likely
>>> >> to be used from CreativeWork
>>> >> * about (e.g. for collection themes)
>>> >> * contentLocation (e.g. for museum/archive collections)
>>> >> * creator (e.g. for collection curators)
>>> >>
>>> >> New property for CreativeWork (or perhaps for Thing)  As a matter of
>>> >>principle, anything imaginable can be thought of has having  parts.
>>> >>Although we are primarily interested in this property for sake of
>>> >>modelling collections and multi-part works, a broader treatment as a
>>> >>property of schema:Thing would be appreciated.
>>> >> * Property: hasPart
>>> >> * Expected Type: Thing
>>> >> * Description: A thing that is part of this CreativeWork. For
>>> example
>>> >>things in a collection or parts in a multi-part work
>>> >>
>>> >> New property for Thing
>>> >> This is the same schema:isPartOf property as currently found in the
>>> >>http://schema.org/WebPage class with schema:CollectionPage as the
>>> range.
>>> >> We would like it promoted for broader use, particularly in this
>>> case,
>>> >>for  use with a Collection Type.
>>> >> * Property: isPartOf
>>> >> * Expected Type: CreativeWork or Thing(dependant on choice for
>>> >>hasPart)
>>> >> * Description: Inverse of hasPart
>>> >>
>>> >> More information and some examples can be found on the
>>> >> SchemaBibExtend Wiki
>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection>.
>>> >>
>>> >> ~Richard.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 08:41:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:28 UTC