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

Re: CreativeWork relationships

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:56:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jci1y=Hy3QRH1mpicyTJqDbCjkd0R4xMKhu+5dS5O-O=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Yes, as Karen and Dan points out, I think that <http://schema.org/about>, <
http://schema.org/mentions> and <http://schema.org/citation> are basic
properties that should cover those general reference cases (and could act
as superproperties of more specific properties in specialized vocabularies).

(Not the two separate 'isBasedOn' and 'exampleOfWork' cases though, which
have other meanings – derivation and extensional narrowing respectively.)

Cheers,
Niklas


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:07 PM, 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 22:57:27 UTC

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