- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 07:56:43 -0800
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Richard,
I guess I haven't made myself clear. I'm not questioning whether people
have a notion of "work". I'm saying that I don't think that there will
be much metadata for Work alone, at least not yet. Work is going to be,
as it is today, inherent in a description of something more specific. So
your example of two books and a movie fits in nicely here. If you want
to say that they are the same work, you could create a Work "record"
with an identifier using schema:creativeWork. Or you could "daisy chain"
them together by saying that they represent the same content. This is
essentially what OCLC appears to do in WorldCat -- gathering the records
that represent the same work, but not creating a new description for the
work. (I actually think this is how FRBR *should* deal with works, but
since it's based on cataloging rather than user activity, it takes a
different approach.) This allows people to create work groupings based
on their own needs, rather than a top-down approach where they have to
discover a work description to use in order to connect their
bibliographic descriptions.
When this came up in another conversation some moons ago, Ross Singer
created some FRBR-ish properties that not only cover this case, but
would also allow one to connect a standard citation to a FRBR-ized
description (below because long). This is more FRBR-ish than we want to
go, but something like "commonEndeavor" could connect two standard
bibliographic citations without the need for a separate Work description.
So I'm not questioning Work, I'm just proposing what I think of as a
"clustering" approach. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive,
btw, and there will be folks who have preference for one over the other,
so having both would be a good idea.
kc
<terms/commonEndeavour>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """commonEndeavour is
intended to define a FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records) relationship between two resources that may or may not be
modeled as FRBR. This makes it possible to assert that a resource
modeled using a vocabulary that does not use the FRBR entity model
explicitly is describing the same Work, Expression, Manifestation,
and/or Item as another resource (which may or may not use the FRBR
model, as well).
commonEndeavour is intended to be used merely as a superproperty for
WEMI-specific subproperties to inherit from, but there are no
restrictions on its use."""@en ;
<terms/commonExpression>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """This property is
used to declare that two resources which may or may not conform to the
FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Resources) entity model
share the same Expression. An example of its use would be to relate a
resource described with a vocabulary such as bibo (which does not
acknowledge the FRBR model) to other resources that describe endeavours
which have the same implied Expression (which could be other bibo
resources or FRBR entities or anything else).
The property is symmetrical, so if <_:someBiboBook>
<ov:commonExpression> <_:otherEdition>, this also means <_:otherEdition>
<ov:commonExpression> <_:someBiboBook>.
It is not transitive.
Having this property also implies ov:commonWork."""@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#isDefinedBy> <terms> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "Common Expression"@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertyOf>
<terms/commonEndeavour> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#term_status> "unstable" ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#userdocs>
<docs/commonExpression> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#note>
<changes/86a4f8ed109d61399297c12ac96ba4e4> .
<terms/commonItem>
<http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/created>
"2010-12-06T17:52:51Z"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime> ;
<http://purl.org/net/vocab/2004/03/label#plural> "Common Items"@en ;
a rdf:Property, <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#SymmetricProperty> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """This property is
used to declare that two resources which may or may not conform to the
FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Resources) entity model
share the same Item. An example of its use would be to relate a resource
described with a vocabulary such as bibo (which does not acknowledge the
FRBR model) to other resources that describe endeavours which contains
the same specific Item (which could be other bibo resources or FRBR
entities or anything else). This implies identical WEMI hierarchies.
The property is symmetrical, so if <_:specificPhysicalItem>
<ov:commonItem> <_:someArchive>, this also means <_:someArchive>
<ov:commonItem> <_:specificPhysicalItem>.
It is not transitive.
Having this property also entails ov:commonManifestation,
ov:commonExpression and ov:commonWork."""@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#isDefinedBy> <terms> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "Common Item"@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertyOf>
<terms/commonEndeavour> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#term_status> "unstable" ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#userdocs>
<docs/commonItem> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#note>
<changes/ff9fe956a8ecdfc589ec8ce8c8bfdb7c> .
<terms/commonManifestation>
<http://purl.org/net/vocab/2004/03/label#plural> "Common
Manifestations"@en ;
<http://schemas.talis.com/2005/dir/schema#etag>
"f78eed93-fa94-4591-ac90-1846598f3920" ;
a rdf:Property, <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#SymmetricProperty> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """This property is
used to declare that two resources which may or may not conform to the
FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Resources) entity model
share the same Manifestation. An example of its use would be to relate
a resource described with a vocabulary such as bibo (which does not
acknowledge the FRBR model) to other resources that describe endeavours
which include the same implied Manifestation (which could be other bibo
resources or FRBR entities or anything else).
The property is symmetrical, so if <_:someBiboBook>
<ov:commonManifestation> <_:someFrbrWork>, this also means
<_:someFrbrWork> <ov:commonManifestation> <_:someBiboBook>. It is not
transitive.
Having this property also implies ov:commonExpression and
ov:commonWork."""@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#isDefinedBy> <terms> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "Common
Manifestation"@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertyOf>
<terms/commonEndeavour> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#term_status> "unstable" ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#userdocs> <docs/> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#note>
<changes/eb54915b9158f343feacb0c7cb03dade>,
<changes/f4c354ac688a3dd54750034b7cf3746d> .
<terms/commonWork>
<http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/created>
"2010-12-06T17:18:34Z"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime> ;
<http://purl.org/net/vocab/2004/03/label#plural> "Common Works"@en ;
a rdf:Property, <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#SymmetricProperty> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """This property is
used to declare that two resources which may or may not conform to the
FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Resources) entity model
share the same Work. An example of its use would be to relate a resource
described with a vocabulary such as bibo (which does not acknowledge the
FRBR model) to other resources that describe endeavours that fall within
the same implied Work (which could be other bibo resources or FRBR
entities or anything else).
The property is symmetrical, so if <_:someBiboBook> <ov:commonWork>
<_:someOtherBiboBook>, this also means <_:someOtherBiboBook>
<ov:commonWork> <_:someBiboBook>.
It is not transitive."""@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#isDefinedBy> <terms> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "Common Work"@en ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertyOf>
<terms/commonEndeavour> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#term_status> "unstable" ;
<http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#userdocs>
<docs/commonWork> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#note>
<changes/0524c589f9c5a22734e5f2974dc558eb> .
On 1/7/13 3:42 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> Karen,
>
> I have much sympathy with your thoughts on the loose hooking together of
> CreativeWorks with similar content – especially recognising that the
> similarity is in the mind of those doing the hooking. versionOf could
> be a good replacement for instanceOf here.
>
> Being immersed in the graph based world of linked data, I try to avoid
> (not always with much success ;-) the use of structured hierarchical
> terms such as vertical & horizontal, as they tend to precondition
> thinking. versionOf again may be useful here.
>
> Having said all that, you only have to listen in on general conversation
> between your colleagues, friends and relatives to realise that we all
> have an implicit understanding of the concept of a creative work and
> [what us frbr exposed folks would label] expressions and manifestations
> of that work (without using those labels).
>
> I contend that the majority of people start their journeys in the search
> engines at that work level before drilling in to find what they are
> looking for in terms of format, availability, etc. By not
> linking/identifying our bibliographic resources at that level we are
> failing to get those resources under the noses of the people looking for
> them. To that end, I believe it is worth striving towards providing
> the metadata capability to describe that relationship, if the [data]
> publisher is aware of it.
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
> On 06/01/2013 22:53, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
> Richard, I would be more comfortable with a relationship property that
> did not presume a hierarchy - that is, did not presume that one
> description is subordinate ("instance of") another. My gut feeling is
> that we will have many descriptions at various levels of detail, but
> that there is no universal ordering that resembles WEMI. Still, people
> will want to say that *this* is similar to/another version of *that*. So
> we'll have lots of citations of Tom Sawyer, most of which will include
> publisher information, and people will want to hook them together. And
> we might have movies and ebooks and audio books and various other things
> that also have similar content. That "hooking together" constitutes a
> Work in the minds of the "hookers" (:-)). But there may be no "Work"
> description in the FRBR sense to point to. So I would prefer a
> horizontal relationship property to a vertical one. Or, in fact, I would
> prefer a property that allows people to make the relationship without
> having to think any more about the relationship than "these are kind of
> the same content."
>
> And, no, I don't know what to call it. "versionOf" comes to mind, but is
> not entirely satisfactory.
>
> kc
>
> On 1/6/13 1:35 PM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > The key points I pick out of your well reasoned email are that there is no
> > accepted definition of "workness", yet [it] would make sense to many people.
> >
> > Schema already includes a CreativeWork - it is an issue already being
> > addressed by the wider community. If we (the community who have probably
> > have spent more time, effort, scholarly article pages, and conference
> > sessions on the topic, than any other) can not help improve the approach, we
> > will be missing a massive opportunity.
> >
> > Dare I suggest it would be too easy to over-think this, and put it onto the
> > 'too difficult' pile.
> >
> > Both Painting & Sculpture are sub-types of CreativeWork.
> >
> > I agree that schema:manuscript is an omission and is something that should
> > be discussed further (under the heading of content vs carrier ?).
> >
> > Back to 'instanceOf' and 'instance', I am not totally happy that they are
> > the best property names (too much baggage inherited from other disciplines),
> > but I have failed to come up with anything better.
> >
> > In my view schema:CreativeWork is aligned with frbr:Work as well as
> > frbr:Expression, frbr:Manifestation, and probably frbr:Item - they all could
> > be considered to be CreativeWork descriptions of more or less abstractness.
> > If my assumption is a working one, an expression could be described (in
> > Schema terms) as the instanceOf a Work as well as having an instance (the
> > manifestation).
> >
> > Sorry for my slightly rambling response - its a bit late in the evening here
> > ;-)
> >
> > ~Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/01/2013 20:08, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have been attempting for a while to respond to the definition of
> >> properties relating works and instances. The problem may be that I have
> >> been reading (too much?) about the work concept lately, and so I try to
> >> cover too much ground.
> >>
> >> (Aside: recommended reading on the library concept of Work: Martha Yee's
> >> four part series "What is a work?" [1] It is a relatively easy read,
> >> there are examples, and the first part gives excellent historic background.)
> >>
> >> I will try to simplify with only a few comments:
> >>
> >> 1) "instanceOf" between two schema:creativeWork descriptions would only
> >> be meaningful under certain conditions (e.g. one describes a work in the
> >> abstract only), conditions which I consider to be (at this point in
> >> time) unlikely to occur. Point 2 is one of the reasons for this opinion.
> >>
> >> 2) There is no accepted definition of "workness" even within the LAM
> >> environment. cf. FRBRoo,[2] ISTC,[3] FaBIO, [4], not to mention BIBFRAME
> >> [5], all of which differ from each other and from the description on
> >> this group's wiki. (cf the example on the wiki, of 2 books and a movie,
> >> is not aligned with FRBR:Work, but would make sense to many people).
> >>
> >> 3) It isn't clear to me whether works will be things (with identifiers),
> >> post-description clusters (with or without IDs. a la' VIAF), or
> >> relationships between bibliographic descriptions (e.g. "sameWork"
> >> between two schema:Book descriptions)
> >>
> >> 4) The term "instance" for a mass-produced product is not helpful. It
> >> could be applied to "singularities" like works of art, but not for
> >> products. schema:creativeWork may describe both products and
> >> singularities, without distinguishing which it is. Most schema:Book
> >> descriptions will be manufactured products, but note that there is no
> >> schema:manuscript. (schema:Painting and schema:Sculpture, which should
> >> describe singularities, appear to be place-holders since they do not
> >> extend schema:creativeWork.)
> >>
> >> Beyond this, it gets even more complex, and I do not believe that we can
> >> resolve this at this time. My recommendation is that it is premature to
> >> introduce this concept into schema.org. There are other relationships,
> >> in particular the part/whole relationship that Richard also has included
> >> on the wiki, that are more useful. We should concentrate on those.
> >>
> >> kc
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] Linked fromhttp://myee.bol.ucla.edu/workspub.htm
> >> [2]http://www.cidoc-crm.org/frbr_inro.html
> >> [3]http://www.istc-international.org/html/
> >> [4]http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http:/purl.org/spar/fabio
> >> [5]http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/bibframe-112312.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 15:57:14 UTC