W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Proposed new Schema.org type for poetry and fiction

From: Peter Krauss <ppkrauss@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:40:33 -0300
Message-ID: <CAHEREtu=Ad2bqPEaLOrBPbWHRjuYbx1B-ufj038khoxxAeHOhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Cc: "lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk" <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
A note about the "taxonomy" of CreativeWork:

* I agree that the reuse principle must be adopted when is possible:
http://schema.org/Book, http://schema.org/Article, Blog, etc. can be reused
with (or before) Poem, etc.

* I understand that Poem, Chapter, Table, Graphic, Formula, etc. can be
both:  "structural part" and/or "type",

  "structural part" of a CreativeWork (Chapter of Book, Section of Article,
etc.). Ref. NISO JATS standard (the semantic of verse-group, disp-formula,
table, etc. as structural parts)

  "type" of a CreativeWork (Poem is subtype of CreativeWork/Literature)...
Ex. Poem and Drama subtypes.

IMPORTANT: about "structural part", there are some confusion about "content
part" and "concrete part"... I vote to the "content view" over the
"concrete view" of a CreativeWork... The tendency nowadays is to use the
"content" as reference. See the similar dichotomy at "Media vs Content" in
ISSN:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number#Media_vs_Content


PS: this personal view make sense? There are some related "SchemaOrg
directives"? perhaps they are in
     http://schema.org/docs/extension.html
     but I not see with clarity...


2015-03-20 10:03 GMT-03:00 Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>:

>  I share the concerns that without care, this could explode in all
> directions.
>
>  I don’t see the logic of putting something as a subType of Article just
> to inherit the pagination properties.
>
>  I believe that the subdivision of CreativeWork types being considered
> here (poetry, fiction, sonnet, etc.) is somewhat orthogonal to the
> structures already in place in Schema.org.  Are not a Book, Article,
> Blog, all examples of written works?
>
>  I believe there is a need for some more CreativeWork subTypes - Chapter,
> & Poem immediately come to mind.
>
>  I also feel that this proposal is expressing the need for something such
> as a ‘form’ property for CreativeWork which in this area could be used for
> novel, poetry, fiction, etc.  I would expect that such a property would
> also be useful for other areas of CreativeWork - perhaps color, B&W, sepia,
> for photographs - miniature, self-portrait, landscape, graffiti for
> painting.
>
>
>   ~Richard
>
>  On 20 Mar 2015, at 11:47, <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> <
> lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  On 2015-03-20 10:29, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Paul Watson
> > <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 19/03/15 08:52, Anke Wehner wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19 March 2015 at 09:01, Paul Watson
> >> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I am thinking about proposing a new schema.org [1] type for poetry,
> >> fiction, and other types of creative writing, as a subType of
> >> schema.org/Article [2], perhaps with an additional property that can
> >> be used to classify what type of creative writing it is (e.g. poem,
> >> haiku, sonnet, short story, fan fiction, etc.).
> >>
> >> Having ways to categorise creative writing would be a good thing,
> >> but I don't think defining them as subtype of Article makes sense
> >> semantically. A poem, novel or movie script is not an article.
> >>
> >> How about creating CreativeWork > WrittenWork, moving wordCount,
> >> pageEnd, pageStart and pagination from Article there, and making
> >> Article and CreativeWriting subtypes of WrittenWork?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Anke
> >
> >  I went for the least disruptive change rather than the most
> > semantically correct one, but if people are happy to create
> > WrittenWork and shift Article to be it's subtype then I'd be happy
> > with that.
> >
> >  So, the suggestion as it stands is to create a new type of
> > WrittenWork  as a subtype of Article; move wordCount, pageEnd,
> > pageStart and pagination from Article to it's new parent WrittenWork,
> > then create a new subtype of WrittenWork called CreativeWriting, with
> > at least one new property (currently unnamed) that can be used to
> > classify what type of creative writing it is (e.g. poem, haiku,
> > sonnet, short story, fan fiction, etc.). Or should we take the
> > opportunity to create some subtypes of CreativeWriting while we're
> > doing this (e.g. Poem, Story, Script, etc.) instead of using a new
> > property of CreativeWriting to classify the type?
> >
> > These seem like (bibliographic) questions I would like to involve the
> > SchemaBibEx CG [1] in. There is a dedicated mailing list [2] where we
> > could go into depth on this, unless all feel comfortable hashing out
> > the options here. (I did not CC the schemabibex group in this reply.)
> >
> > My spontaneous reaction is that there may be some need for a subtype
> > for textual works. But I am wary about making it vaguely limited to
> > "creative" forms (if "creative" here implies excluding non-fiction,
> > academic essays and such). Anke's basic WrittenWork might be enough.
> > The specific nature of the text can probably be given using
> > http://schema.org/genre [3] (provided a resolution to schema issue 346
> > [3]) in combination with external enumerations? (See e.g. "genre in
> > literature" on wikipedia [4] for the motivation to use genre.) Compare
> > that to the newly introduced property http://schema.org/artform [4],
> > which (as I previously suggested) might be extended to include other
> > forms of expression. (To me, it bears a resemblance to genre, perhaps
> > even being a subproperty thereof.)
> >
> > In any case, the multitude of nature-specific subclasses of
> > WrittenText can explode just as with specific kinds of VisualArtwork
> > (which was the motivation for introducing artwork as opposed to using
> > multiple types directly). I'd really like experienced library folks to
> > chime in, and that we avoid the introduction of anything overly
> > specific here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Niklas
> >
> > [1]: https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/ [5]
> > [2]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/ [6]
> > [3]: https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/346 [7]
> > [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre#Literature [8]
> >
>
> I'd be very grateful for the experienced library folks to chime in!
>
>
> I think we've got to be careful about being confused between form (e.g. the artform property of VisualArtwork or a new property for the proposed new type for potery/fiction) and genre.
>
> The former is about the form of the content (for VisualArtwork: Acrylic Painting, Oil Painting, Drawing, Woodcut), whereas genre is about the subject matter of the content (Landscape painting, studio portrait, street scene).
>
> This is probably even more apparent for written works where the new 'type' property would hold values such as "short story", "novel", "novella", "Poem", "haiku" (relating to the form of the written work), while the existing genre property inherited from CreativeWork would be for the genre of the content of the written work: "Science Fiction", "Fantasy", "Romance", "Horror", "Literary Fiction" etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>  > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://schema.org > [2] http://schema.org/Article > [3] http://schema.org/genre > [4] http://schema.org/artform > [5] https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/ > [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/ > [7] https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/346 > [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre#Literature
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 13:41:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 20 March 2015 13:41:02 UTC