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

Re: CreativeWork relationships

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 07:07:35 -0700
Message-ID: <523C56A7.7020303@kcoyle.net>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Vicki,

While a relationship like "refersToWork" makes perfect sense, it is the 
beginning of a slippery slope - the number of relationships between 
Works could be very large (translation of, adaptation of, screenplay 
based on, cites, ....) so I think we need to think those through 
carefully. [1]

In library data, something like a commentary on Othello has Othello as 
its subject. That one seems to fit nicely into the "about" relationship. 
However, if a work "cites" another work, that seems to be a different 
kind of relationship, albeit one that I think would be very useful.

kc
[1] There is an entire vocabulary for types of citations:
http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://www.essepuntato.it/2013/03/cito-functions


On 9/20/13 6:48 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote:
> All four of these properties seem like good additions. Some care will
> need to go into the descriptions so it is clear that my paperback /Moby
> Dick/ is an example of /Moby Dick/ while the /Moby Dick: The Graphic
> Novel/ is based on the original.
>
> This may be too far afield, but has there been any thought to a
> '*refersToWork*/' /to capture the relationship between commentaries and
> criticisms to the original work. A commentary on /Othello/ is not an
> example of /Othello/ or based on /Othello/, but it would be nice to note
> that relationship.
>
> Vicki
>
> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist |vtardif@google.com
> <mailto:vtardif@google.com>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org
> <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Triggered by some of the discussion around the recent Audiobook
>     proposal
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/0162.html> I
>     posted on behalf of the SchemaBibEx Group(snippet below),  I think
>     we need to address the issue of adding some properties to
>     CreativeWork allowing the description of relationships between
>     CreativeWorks, as a more general issue.
>
>     In the Audiobook discussion '*isBasedOn*' has been suggested to
>     reference the original literary work.
>
>     Within the SchemaBibEx group we have been discussing the
>     relationship between Works (in the FRBR
>     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records> sense
>     of Work) and examples of that [conceptual] work.  As Karen points
>     out there is some work on Work (from Freebase, Open Library,
>     LibraryThing, WorldCat, etc.) in this area which could benefit from
>     being able to describe relationships they are defining.  As she also
>     points out, apart from these organisations, there is little metadata
>     available yet so we may be in a chicken or egg situation as to adoption.
>     Draft proposals for this being:
>
>       * '*workExample*' - Example/instance/realization/derivation of the
>         concept of this creative work.  e.g..  The paperback edition
>       * '*exampleOfWork'* - The creative work that this work is an
>         example/instance of.
>
>
>     Karen also suggests a "same work" relationship where you could for
>     instance relate the paperback to the hardback - how about
>     '*sameWorkAs*'?
>
>     I would support the adoption of all four of these.
>
>     Adopting something like FRBR would be too complex for a a general
>     vocabulary like Schema.org <http://Schema.org> - we should be
>     looking for a [smallish] number that will be useful in relating
>     works of many types together.
>
>     A KISS approach is desirable, however addressing it piecemeal around
>     individual proposals may not be the simplest way when the core
>     CreativeWork type is probably the best place to add these
>     properties. As they are just as applicable to sculptures and
>     paintings as books movies and audiobooks or even webpages.
>
>     I suspect we are looking at a few, more focused, sub-properties of a
>     generic workRelationship property (domain and range of CreativeWork).
>
>     Coming to my point in this rambling email.  Can we get a consensus
>     on  a) there being a need to describe relationships between
>     CreativeWorks in this way, and  b) a smallish set would do the job,
>     at least for now.
>
>     If we can, could we then run a suggestion and agree/disagree process
>     to try to define that shortish list of candidates.
>     ~Richard
>
>     [From Proposal: Audiobook]
>
>         That said, we (schema BibEx) are contemplating links between
>         CreativeWorks for those instances where there are identifiers
>         that can be used for that purpose. I think it would be
>         preferable that such linking properties be as general as
>         possible, and one possibility is to allow any number of
>         CreativeWorks to state a "same Work" relationship between them.
>         So all of those editions of Moby Dick can state that they
>         represent the same work (with links between them) or they can
>         all state that they represent the same work described
>         inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/Moby_Dick. If there is a "Work" record
>         (approximating the FRBR sense of Work) then you can declare any
>         edition to the be same work as that record's URL. (Freebase,
>         Open Library, LibraryThing, and apparently soon WorldCat, have
>         identifiers for Work, although their definitions of Work vary
>         among them.) The variety of possible relationships is enormous,
>         and so I think that beginning with a KISS approach while we see
>         how this pans out would be wisest.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 14:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:31 UTC