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

Re: Proposal: Collection

From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:58:49 +0000
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Message-ID: <CE1EA613.95C0%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
I have now added the Collection proposal to the WebSchemas Wiki.

I have also produced an RDFa Lite Reflection file for it - attached as I
was not sure what to do with it.

~Richard

On 28/07/2013 19:42, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:

>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-owlanno
>>t
>>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 Wednesday, 31 July 2013 10:59:20 UTC

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