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

Re: Proposal: Collection

From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:42:03 +0000
To: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE1B2429.9344%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Update proposal to reflect DCTerms heritage, including some of the wording
in the property descriptions.

~Richard.

On 17/07/2013 09:40, "Wes Turner" <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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-owlannot
>ationproperty-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 Sunday, 28 July 2013 18:42:35 UTC

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