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

Re: CreativeWork relationships

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:49:46 -0700
Message-ID: <525C129A.1060304@kcoyle.net>
To: public-schemabibex@w3.org, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Unfortunately, I think we would have as many answers to Chaarls' 
questions as we have people on these lists. The answers that Richard 
gives make perfect sense, but they are not the answers that a library 
cataloger would give, and an archivist's answers would be different to 
the librarian's. Both would probably be different from those of a 
seemingly average library or archive user.

What is it that we need to accomplish? and to what extent is the use 
case affected by the precision of these relationships (or the lack thereof)?

kc



On 10/14/13 7:29 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> As Chaarls points out there are a few types of these relationships being
> grouped together here, some more concrete than others.
>
> There are what I would term the known derivation relationships between
> instances of the same thing (this is an example of that, the hardback
> book edition of the work, etc.)
> eg.
> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57714007>
> a schema:Book;
> schema:name "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince"@en;
> schema:author <http://viaf.org/viaf/116796842>;
> schema:exampleOf
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince>
> .
>
> There are the less exact relationships - isBasedOn, commonEndeavour, etc.
> eg.
> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/
> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57714007>>
> a schema:Movie;
> schema:name "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince (2009)"@en;
> schema:director <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0946734
> <http://viaf.org/viaf/116796842>>;
> schema:isBasedOn
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince>;
> schema:commonEndeavor <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57714007>
> .
>
> There are derived relationships - translationOf, representationOf, etc.
> eg.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo>
> a schema:Sculpture;
> contentLocation "Louvre Museum, Paris, France";
> schema:dateCreated "Approx. 130-100 BC"
> .
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/elhombredepan/4708103537/>
> a schema:ImageObject;
> schema:creator <http://www.flickr.com/photos/elhombredepan/>;
> schema:isRepresentationOf <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo>;
> schema:dateCreated "2010-04-07"
> .
> I've added isRepresentationOf to the list.
>
>
> Taking a stab answering Chaarls specific examples:
>
>>> West Side Story, the Musical, is a version of Romeo and Juliet. Is
>>> this what you mean by "isBasedOn"?
>
> It is either isBasedOn or isAdaptionOf
>
>>>
>>> West Side Story, the movie, is a version of the Musical, but there is
>>> a change to make the format. Is this a format of West Side Story, and
>>> is using a
>
> It would be based on, or an adaption of, the musical
>
>>> Wikipedia entry URL as the source a sensible thing to do?
>
> Depends on the Wikipedia description I suppose - is it the generic work
> it is describing or a specific example (the musical or the film)
>
>>>
>>> Blade Runner is an adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,
>>> and often called the book of the movie. But it is not really as close
>>> to the original as West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet. Film
>>> adaptations are often pretty different from their original sources.
>>> Shirley Valentine is another example of a movie and play that are not
>>> all that close to each other, despite being very recongisably the
>>> same work.
>
> May be we need 'wasInspiredBy'
>
>>>
>>> Romeo and Juliet, the Baz Luhrmann movie, is a version of Romeo and
>>> Juliet in a different format. Is this a workExample?
>
> I do not know the Baz Luhrmann movie, but if the text spoken by the
> actors is that of the play, yes I think it would be.  In the same way
> that an audiobook would be a workExample of the book.  If however the
> text had been adapted for the movie (making it a different work, with an
> additional author) then it would be basedOn.
>
>>>
>>> There are also various text versions of Romeo and Juliet. I'm
>>> guessing they are all candidates for workExample/exampleOfWork.
>>>
> In principle yes. These well known, often copied, often historical works
> are a challenge for such analysis as they are often changed in the
> copying and translation enough to make them not the original work.  With
> the fairly concrete wokExample and the more vague adaptionOf and basedOn
> she should be able to satisfy the needs of most cases.  Examples &
> documentation should help here.
>
>
>>> The other set of use cases are where there is no clear "original".
>>>
>>> For example, I write a new, interactive internet site telling a story
>>> about swans and ostriches. It is natively video, or text, or text and
>>> audio, and so on - you decide what pieces you actually view.
>>>
>>> I could describe the resource as having multiple versions, each with
>>> different characteristics (format, language, ...) but the URL is the
>>> same. I think I want to use named graphs to distinguish these cases.
>>> (I want to do the same thing to handle the fact that there are
>>> effectively multiple versions of the resource with different
>>> accessibility characteristics, but the URL where you get the resource
>>> is the same).
>
> Depends on how stand-alone each component is.  I would suggest each part
> is an individual CreativeWork, with probably a commonEndeavor
> relationship, and they are all partOf a group work.
>
> I can't see us getting named graph capability in Schema anytime soon ;-)
>
>>>
>>> I think it would be useful to flesh out my use cases a bit more, so
>>> they can be worked up into concrete examples with answers. But so far
>>> I don't see:
>>>
>>> - How do I handle the distinction between "X is an original. Y is
>>> based somehow on X" and "X has multiple representations because it is
>>> true multimedia"?
>>> - What is the difference between a play or film that is an adaptation
>>> of a book, and something that is just a retelling of the same story?
>>> How does that compare with a resource that is an attempt to adapt as
>>> literally as possible in a different format? (And how does that
>>> compare with translation - is the best translation of the Odyssey
>>> alliterative verse or blank verse or hexameter or prose)?
>
> Much of this is down to the metadata creator - we need to give them
> enough tools to do the job but not too many to cause significant confusion.
>
>
> ~Richard
>
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 09:11, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For what it's worth, here are examples of 'core' properties that can
>> hold between Creative work in our data model in the Europeana initiative:
>> -- dc:subject and edm:isRepresentationOf for "aboutness" links (Mona
>> Lisa and a historical picture of Mona Lisa that represents it)
>> -- edm:realizes, which is quite FRBR-related (An item of the
>> Gutenberg’s edition realizes the Bible)
>> -- edm:isSimilarTo: covering true and "questionable" cases of
>> derivation in the FRBR sense. Including sub-properties
>> edm:isDerivativeOf (for real derivation cases like re-working,
>> extension--this is a sub-property of dcterms:isVersionOf, targeted
>> perhaps rather at CreativeWorks) , edm:incorporated (for inclusion /
>> re-use of works within others) and edm:isSuccessorOf (for "sequels")
>>
>> I can contribute more documentation and example for these, but the
>> mail would be long then. So will wait till there's interest. For the
>> curious, however, you can have a look at our quite dry PDF reference
>> at [1].
>>
>> Then you can have more general links (dc:relation), general part-whole
>> relation (dcterms:hasPart), citation (dcterms:references). These ones
>> are clearly in schema.org <http://schema.org> already.
>>
>> @Chaals: the criteria for judging what counts what as an intellectual
>> work, and thus a derivation, a version, or a mere change of format,
>> are very fuzzy. I'm not sure we can give one answer. E.g. for
>> translators of historic texts a translation would surely count as a
>> creative work, and what is a good translation is a matter of
>> research-level debates. For more recent book publishing cases, the
>> translation may not be such a big deal... but not always: in French
>> the first translation of Edgar Poe was done by Charles Baudelaire, and
>> it is acknowledged an important work for the later fame of both authors.
>>
>> Things may be more straightforward for format-specific variants, as
>> you write: "resource that is an attempt to adapt as literally as
>> possible in a different format", as in accessibility scenarios.
>> For this a property like dcterms:hasFormat could be used. And I think
>> the different variations should have their different URIs. Maybe one
>> want to serve a common access URI for them (say, typed as an OAI-ORE
>> Aggregation [2]) but that's a story slightly different than creating
>> the RDF graph for these different versions, their attributes and the
>> links between them, which needs separate URIs.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1]
>> http://pro.europeana.eu/documents/900548/0d0f6ec3-1905-4c4f-96c8-1d817c03123c
>> [2] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/primer
>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 00:15:43 +0200, Wallis,Richard
>>> <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the topics we have discussed in the SchemaBibEx group has
>>>> been properties to describe some relationships between CreativeWorks.
>>>>
>>>> In several recent threads on public-vocabs there has also been
>>>> mention of relationships between CreativeWork such as adaptionOf,
>>>> isBasedOn, etc.
>>>>
>>>> It is clear therefore that this topic is more broadly relevant than
>>>> the bibliographic focus of SchemaBibEx
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> To help the discussion in this area I have produced a small list of
>>>> these proposed properties for CreativeWork, which have CreativeWork
>>>> as a range.
>>>>
>>>> As it was assembled by trawling threads which I remembered included
>>>> such mentions, it is almost certainly not a comprehensive list, it
>>>> also includes some that are very similar in intention.
>>>
>>> Yes. In particular, I have two different sets of use cases in mind.
>>> One revolves around understanding that something is like something
>>> else, but really not the same.
>>>
>>> West Side Story, the Musical, is a version of Romeo and Juliet. Is
>>> this what you mean by "isBasedOn"?
>>>
>>> West Side Story, the movie, is a version of the Musical, but there is
>>> a change to make the format. Is this a format of West Side Story, and
>>> is using a Wikipedia entry URL as the source a sensible thing to do?
>>>
>>> Blade Runner is an adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,
>>> and often called the book of the movie. But it is not really as close
>>> to the original as West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet. Film
>>> adaptations are often pretty different from their original sources.
>>> Shirley Valentine is another example of a movie and play that are not
>>> all that close to each other, despite being very recongisably the
>>> same work.
>>>
>>> Romeo and Juliet, the Baz Luhrmann movie, is a version of Romeo and
>>> Juliet in a different format. Is this a workExample?
>>>
>>> There are also various text versions of Romeo and Juliet. I'm
>>> guessing they are all candidates for workExample/exampleOfWork.
>>>
>>> The other set of use cases are where there is no clear "original".
>>>
>>> For example, I write a new, interactive internet site telling a story
>>> about swans and ostriches. It is natively video, or text, or text and
>>> audio, and so on - you decide what pieces you actually view.
>>>
>>> I could describe the resource as having multiple versions, each with
>>> different characteristics (format, language, ...) but the URL is the
>>> same. I think I want to use named graphs to distinguish these cases.
>>> (I want to do the same thing to handle the fact that there are
>>> effectively multiple versions of the resource with different
>>> accessibility characteristics, but the URL where you get the resource
>>> is the same).
>>>
>>> I think it would be useful to flesh out my use cases a bit more, so
>>> they can be worked up into concrete examples with answers. But so far
>>> I don't see:
>>>
>>> - How do I handle the distinction between "X is an original. Y is
>>> based somehow on X" and "X has multiple representations because it is
>>> true multimedia"?
>>> - What is the difference between a play or film that is an adaptation
>>> of a book, and something that is just a retelling of the same story?
>>> How does that compare with a resource that is an attempt to adapt as
>>> literally as possible in a different format? (And how does that
>>> compare with translation - is the best translation of the Odyssey
>>> alliterative verse or blank verse or hexameter or prose)?
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Chaals
>>>
>>>> Comments on the list, omissions, suggestions are invited so that we
>>>> can get some consensus around a hopefully small set, to cover many
>>>> circumstances, to propose as additions to CreativeWork.
>>>>
>>>> The list is currently hosted on the SchemaBibEx Wiki:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Schema_CreativeWork_Relationships
>>>>
>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 15:50:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC