Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

Jason, thanks for working on this. CommonEndeavor is a corollary to the 
work/Instance proposal. Work/Instance assumes a hierarchy -- that you 
have a Work like "Moby Dick" that is published in many forms, and that 
you have identifier for that Work that is more abstract than any of the 
actual publications. For example, a Wikipedia page could be considered 
to represent the Work, not any of the specific publications. The 
Instance then is an Instance of that work.

In many cases you do not have an identified "thing" for the Work, or at 
least you don't have one handy at the time you are creating the 
metadata. But you do, for example, have two different publications of 
Moby Dick and you know they represent the same content. So 
"CommonEndeavor" (which may not be a good name for it) is a way of 
saying that these two things share their creative content. Eventually 
these may be able to connect to a work and then they would become 
instances of that work.

On 1/26/13 11:04 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:

>
> Is there a URI for this Book? If so it could be used either as the
> value of the itemid attribute or as the value of the url property. If
> itemid is used in the example, then it would remove some blank nodes
> in the RDF output. (Microdata processors that know about the
> Schema.org vocabulary should probably treat the url property in the
> same way. Schema.org promotes the url property instead of itemid for
> some reason.) Even though the Schema.org examples don't use itemid
> there is no reason why we couldn't show better examples that do use
> the attribute.

There could be a URI for the Books. Actually, there could be more than 
one for each book since bibliographic data often gets a handful of 
identifiers: the identifier of the national library that originally 
created the record, the identifier of OCLC when the record entered that 
database, the identifier of the local library system where the record 
currently resides, as well as an ISBN. Which one is "the" identifier 
that should be the URI for the book is not always clear. I tend to favor 
the local system number from the system that most recently exposed the 
bibliographic data as the "subject" URI, with the others as additional 
identifiers.

All that to say that I can easily make up a URI for each of these items. :-)


>
> If commonEndeavor is a property of CreativeWork then the expected type
> (as is given in the Overview section) should be a CreativeWork.
> Currently, how this parses is as a list of URLs (since the value of an
> itemprop on an a element is the value of the href attribute). So I
> think the example is a poor one as it doesn't show how we'd like this
> to be used. This might in fact be the kind of data that publishers end
> up creating, but the example we give should be more correct and show
> more of the expressiveness.

I'm afraid you lost me here. I copied a bunch of stuff from the 
work/instance page [1] but had trouble fitting it into my example. If I 
have sufficiently explained the intention, please feel free to make the 
example better. If not, contact me and I'm happy to work with you on it.


>
> Is the CommonEndeavor proposal one that the group is still considering
> pursuing?

I believe it is still on the table, and so appreciate any work you wish 
to do on it. As I say above, my main goal was to have a horizontal 
relationship between bibliographic items in addition to the vertical 
relationship of work/instance, especially when the Work information 
isn't available (which at the moment it usually isn't). In current 
library work there are a number of horizontal relationships being 
considered:
- adaptation of (e.g. a book made into a movie; a children's version of 
an adult text)
- translation of
- arrangement of (for music)

etc. CommonEndeavor is kind of a catchall, and the more specific 
relationships, where known, would be preferable.

I don't feel strongly that we have to include this particular vocabulary 
term, but I just don't think that we've got the data to make much use of 
the hierarchical relationships at this time.

kc



If so, I can update the example to use the expected type for
> this property. I mainly just wanted to give an example of how the
> examples could be formatted to make it easier to evaluate them and
> show the tools used to generate the output. If there is a desire an
> RDFa Lite example with resulting RDF could also be created, though it
> ought to be very similar to the Microdata one.
>
> Jason
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor#Simple_example_showing_HTML_markup
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 19:44:07 UTC