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

Re: CreativeWork relationships

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:28:32 +0100
Message-ID: <523C5B90.4050703@hw.ac.uk>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org

Hello. There is already an isBasedOnUrl property of creative works. It 
came in to schema from the LRMI work and is used to point to "a resource 
that was used in the creation of this resource". The use case in that 
context was indicating the sort of derivation/modification of a creative 
work (in the copyright sense of the words) that is allowed by Creative 
Commons licences without the "No Derivatives" clause.

The suggestions below look sound. My one concern is that there might be 
a collision between it and isBasedOnUrl. I assume that the isBasedOn 
property will indicate a relationship between CreativeWorks(*), so there 
is scope for confusion between the URL provided for isBasedOnUrl and a 
URL provided for the Url property of the CreativeWork at the end of an 
isBasedOn property (I hope that is easier to understand than to state in 
words).  Would the proposed isBasedOn relationship be entirely distinct 
from the relationship indicated by isBasedOnUrl, would it be a 
sub/superset? Most importantly how is any distinction explained?

Phil



*i.e. I don't suppose we are going into possibilities of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_(character) 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_%28character%29> isBasedOn 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_of_Scotland

On 20/09/2013 12:52, Wallis,Richard 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.
>
>
>


-- 
<http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>



----- 
Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
Top in the UK for student experience
Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student Survey 2012)

We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to 
join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. 
Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how
to apply.

Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 14:29:14 UTC

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