Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

Hi Jeff,

Simple and good!

I think the link between the wikipedia page and the dbpedia is clear.
In fact it mirrors quite well the relation published in dbpedia:
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)
    foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf 	
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film) .

I would have a little caveat about commonEndeavor between the product(model) and the work, though. As Karen has written it (and I think I like the approach) commonEndeavour is a rather horizontal relation [1]. Here you're using it in a hierarchical fashion (from two products/manifestations/whatevers to a work they are derived from).
I don't think there's a formal contradiction with how the page [1] specifies commonEndeavour at all. In fact I'd argue it's fully compatible with it. But it doesn't look like the most common case that is targeted...

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor


> 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 20:42:59 UTC