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

Re: CreativeWork relationships

From: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:21:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOr1obH97N7Q_ZcSoHTGLaW5DiubjSL=jmvbb7KbdMVoBeLN+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I completely agree this is a slippery slope. I am thinking somewhat aloud
about whether there is a way to tease out the differences between a
citation (which exists in schema.org now) and a looser reference to another
work. I concede that these differences may be harder to distinguish and of
lesser value to site authors lacking a Library Science degree.

Vicki



Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com



On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 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<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 <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<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<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<http://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 14:21:54 UTC

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