RE: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

Laura,

Sorry, ISTC didn't come to mind because I'm barely aware of its
existence. Any theory on this is a good theory. Is there some sample
data available that we could examine?

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LAURA DAWSON [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:35 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>; <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
> Subject: 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_ex
> >> a
> >>> 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 03:41:24 UTC