W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2014

Re: itemprop="translator"

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 06:52:52 -0700
Message-ID: <5405CBB4.8010501@kcoyle.net>
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, "Wallis,Richard" <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
CC: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>

I have nothing against adding "translator" but I could make an even 
stronger case for "illustrator." Rarely does one choose to purchase a 
book based on the identity of the translator, but illustrators, 
especially for children's books, can be as important as the author, 
sometimes even more so. (They get separate awards, for instance.)

Movie archivists are more interested in the director than the actors, 
since their viewpoint is film as oeuvre.

So although we may choose to add a few key roles (and we might be able 
to get stats on their use in real data), it's important to keep in mind 
that any selection of roles represents a point of view, and we don't 
want to exclude any other POVs. I recommend that we beef up the roles 
capability and do some book and archival-type examples before or at the 
same time that we add any hard-coded roles to CreativeWork.


On 9/1/14, 4:49 PM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 01.09.2014, 17:25, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>:
>> I agree Karen, I also hold out high hopes for the Roles pattern to make the multitude of CreativeWork to Person/Organization relators, manageable.
>> As you say there are a handful of common ones that come to mind (director, producer for Movie, author, editor, translator, illustrator, for books/literary works).   In the balance between simplicity & understandability for web masters and keeping the numbers of properties manageable, we should be conservative in adding any more than a few as listed above.
> I would be pretty keen to have actors in movies :) but I agree that it is important to keep it simple, and based on real use cases for people who are going to publish.
> That said, I am keen to see translationOf / hasTranslation and would like to see a translator Role.
> (I think the sticking point on translation is about the difference between identifying the thing translated and the translation, or between noting that there *is* a translation without specifying which is the original...)
>> Beyond that using Role for other creator / contributor roles should be the order of the day.
> Yes, that seems to make sense.
> cheers
>> ~Richard
>> On 1 Sep 2014, at 15:35, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>>   I was under the impression that creative works would be able to use the "roles" pattern that was discussed [1].  Right now, CreativeWork has author, creator, and contributor. Although there are a handful of common creative roles that come to mind (editor, translator, illustrator), the actual number blossoms quickly when you move beyond books. Movies have a huge number of creative roles; music also has quite a few (librettist, composer, performer, lead singer...). The roles list used by the Library of Congress gives an idea of the magnitude of the problem. [2]
>>>   kc
>>>   [1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014May/0085.html
>>>   [2] http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators.html
>>>   On 8/31/14, 6:44 AM, Mats Blakstad wrote:
>>>>   Does there exist in attribute for translator, like the author attribute?
>>>>   If not, would be great to add that!
>>>   --
>>>   Karen Coyle
>>>   kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>   m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>   skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 13:53:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:44 UTC