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

Re: Move schema:fileSize & schema:fileFormat to schema:CreativeWork

From: Adrian Pohl <ad.pohl@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:06:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOtd05EQv-26=atLRQC87mfH1x8aBA91_qSLkJLM=U7KuVzrfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I looked for a concrete example so that this doesn't remain a largely
theoretic exercise. See resource [1] at Merlot (one of the first
implementers of LRMI, see [2] for a list of all early LRMI
implementers). In the HTML view the "Technical Format" is clearly
stated: "HTML/Text". This information isn't part of the schema.org
markup, though, as seen in the source and the results of the
structured data testing tool. [3] (I haven't looked long enough to
find an example with "pdf" or "odt" but these and others should of
course also be taken into account.)

In this and many other cases, the CreativeWork only exists in one file
format on the web, i.e. there is only one example of the work.
Applying an exampleOfWork/workExample construction to add information
about the format is too much overhead here when a simple fileFormat
statement would do the job.

Nonetheless, we should also think about ways how to express the
existence of a CreativeWork in different formats with schema.org. But
shouldn't we do this in another thread?

Adrian

[1] www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=408853
[2] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Implementation
[3] http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=www.merlot.org%2Fmerlot%2FviewMaterial.htm%3Fid%3D408853

On 4 September 2014 20:58, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> +1 for using exampleOfWork / workExample as many times as necessary to move vaguely up or down the bibliographic abstraction layers.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Scott [mailto:dan@coffeecode.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 2:55 PM
>> To: Karen Coyle
>> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Move schema:fileSize & schema:fileFormat to
>> schema:CreativeWork
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:36:30AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> >There may not be an easy way to do this, but "same content, different
>> >format" and "different content but related concepts" may need to be
>> >differentiated.
>>
>> They may, if something more than a gut feeling is provided as a
>> rationale, but we could start by using exampleOfWork / workExample now.
>>
>> > Actually, the former now reminds me of the accessibility proposals,
>> >which might solve this, since those were focused specifically on
>> >different technology capabilities of the same content, so that people
>> >needing a particular technology or accessibility feature could know
>> >that they were getting the same content, not something different.
>>
>> I'm not sure if https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility was
>> what you were thinking of (a link would be helpful), but when I read
>> the definition for http://schema.org/encoding ("A media object that
>> encodes this CreativeWork"), it sounds like a specialization of
>> workExample that would work (hah) reasonably well for this need... if
>> MediaObject was broadened from audio/image/video to something broader,
>> or alternately, the range of the property was broadened to a new
>> "FileObject" type (which could use the fileSize / fileFormat properties
>> that started this thread).
>>
>> But in the mean time, it seems to me that exampleOfWork / workExample
>> would work well enough to express this relationship until such time
>> that more specific proposals are brought forth.
>>
>> >On 9/4/14, 11:12 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>> >>On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:08:55AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>On 9/4/14, 8:36 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>> >>>>>How can we express that there is a PDF and an ODT of the same
>> document?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>... thanks to the workExample / exampleOfWork properties that were
>> >>>>recently added to schema.org, you can express those relationships.
>> >>>>See
>> >>>>https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/108 for a request to add
>> >>>>examples for those properties to schema.org (where we express that
>> >>>>there are both book editions and movie adaptations of a given
>> novel).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>My gut feeling is that PDF/ODT is not the same as a book and a movie
>> >>>derived from the book. Would both be coded with workExample?
>> >>
>> >>Hmm, my gut feels differently than your gut. I would say yes, they
>> >>would be coded with either or both of exampleOfWork and workExample.
>> >>
>> >>exampleOfWork: "A creative work that this work is an
>> >>example/instance/realization/derivation of."
>> >>
>> >>Let's add LaTeX to the mix. If you are in the business of running a
>> >>repository of open access scholarly articles, you might want to offer
>> >>LaTeX, HTML, and PDF versions of each article. Each format would
>> exist
>> >>at a different URL*, and they are three different instances of the
>> >>same creative work, right?
>> >>
>> >>* Well, okay, you could use content-negotiation to serve them up at
>> >>the same URL, but that seems unlikely to occur on the normal web.
>> >>
>> >
>> >--
>> >Karen Coyle
>> >kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> >m: 1-510-435-8234
>> >skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>> >
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 07:06:56 UTC

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