Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

Please let's not forget ISTC?

On Jan 26, 2013, at 10:30 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> Karen,
> 
> The thought that a Wikipedia page could be considered to represent the
> Work has been bugging me for awhile too. I've heard Roy Tennant use the
> term "Ground Truth" when it comes to mapping MARC to BIBFRAME. My
> feeling is that this Wikipedia comparison for Work is a credible variant
> of that.
> 
> Jeff
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 2:44 PM
>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> Subject: 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_exa
>>> mple_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 Sunday, 27 January 2013 03:35:13 UTC