Re: Recording & chat transcript from 19th February meeting now on Wiki

Right - I see what you ware getting at now.

Vertically, as you put it, I don't think the relationship we are trying to
represent is as strong as sub-class. That infers that all properties of the
work must reproduced.

My favourite (today - it will almost certainly change tomorrow) way to
describe it is that expressions, manifestations etc. are 'derived from' a
work.  However 'derivation' and 'derivedFrom' still don't beat instance &
instanceOf as potential property names.

Horizontally,because it would be constraining to prescribe in the vocabulary
what types of relationship, would not 'related' be sufficient as a property
name.

~Richard.

On 23/02/2013 15:21, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Richard, I'm suggesting that it might be an adjustment to the
> commonEndeavor proposal. Can we have a discussion of that to get group
> consensus?
> 
> kc
> 
> On 2/21/13 8:54 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>> I didn't record it as an action as I saw it just as a possible adjustment I
>> could make to the Work-Instance proposal - which I will do (possibly as a
>> discussion point) soon.
>> 
>> ~Richard.
>> 
>> 
>> On 21/02/2013 16:11, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I recall that we hit on "versionOf" at some point (it doesn't show up in
>>> the chat). It seems to me that we need to decide if that has the
>>> semantics of "sub-class" or "related" -- in other words, whether it is a
>>> vertical or horizontal relationship, and if horizontal then do we see it
>>> as an inverse property?
>>> 
>>> I would probably answer "no" to that last question, and suggest that
>>> "versionOf" simply says that A is a versionOf B with no implication as
>>> to which came first or which is dominant. It would be correct to say
>>> that A is a versionOf B and B is a versionOf A, but we would not infer
>>> that A is a versionOf B and B is a versionOf C means that A is a version
>>> of C (not transitive).
>>> 
>>> I realize that this is NOT what "instanceOf" is intended to do because
>>> instanceOf requires the link to be aware of class/sub-class
>>> relationships. One could use "versionOf" in place of "instanceOf" in the
>>> proposal, and that would then define a class/sub-class relationship
>>> between things. I'm wary of this because I think the real world case is
>>> messier than class/sub-class.
>>> 
>>> kc
>>> 
>>> On 2/20/13 12:40 PM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219
>> 
>> 
>>

Received on Saturday, 23 February 2013 19:20:10 UTC