- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:40:34 -0500
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Here's some Monday a.m. philosophy (which I reserve the right to deny when Tuesday a.m. rolls around): Rather than explain what I'm trying to say, I'll wait to see how people interpret it. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)> a schema:WebPage ; schema:about <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)> . <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)> a frbr:Work; . <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71794143> a schema:ProductModel ; x-schema:hasCarrier x-schema:DVD ; x-schema:commonEndeavor <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)> ; owl:sameAs <http://isbn.org/isbn/9781419838231>; . <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/37633433> a schema:ProductModel ; x-schema:hasCarrier x-schema:VHS ; x-schema:commonEndeavor <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)> ; owl:sameAs <http://isbn.org/isbn/9780792835844> ; . Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:56 AM > To: Young,Jeff (OR) > Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org > Subject: Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example > > Jeff, now that you mention this I am struck with grave doubts. ;-) The > Wikipedia URI may be considered to represent the work, as would be > dbpedia URI, but the Wikipedia page is not a commonEndeavor with the > work. This is where we get back to your arguments about 303's -- but > I'm not convinced they save us in this case. The Wikipedia URI > represents the topic AND the page, but can you say that a book is an > "instance" of a Wikipedia URI? > > Too philosophically difficult for Sunday a.m. > > kc > > On 1/26/13 7:30 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 17:41:07 UTC