Re: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

On 1/28/13 9:51 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Young,Jeff (OR)<jyoung@oclc.org>  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I like this way of discussing modeling very much. By grounding in RDF,
> where the semantics and concepts are well thought out and precise, the
> risk of talking around each other regarding entity disambiguation or
> identification is much lessened. Of course one has to grasp RDF and
> subscribe to its semantics. But by doing so there is very little room
> for reinvention of important core concepts, so that focus can be kept
> on expressing the actual domain knowledge. "Just" syntax rarely
> suffices, since it leaves room for implicit interpretation, which
> commonly leads to conceptual confusion and semantic drift.
>
> (Also, with RDF as a common base, different syntaxes simply aren't as
> much of a barrier (other than reading speed). Turtle is by far the
> most readable one, but descriptions using e.g. RDFa Lite are thus also
> easy to grasp conceptually, since they are expressing RDF statements
> directly.)
>
> Now, to the topic at hand.
>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)>
>>          a schema:WebPage ;
>>          schema:about
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)>
>>          .
>
> This is how I have understood the relations as well. I think it
> depicts the basic intent of what DBPedia IRIs identify – i.e. the
> things described by the corresponding wikipedia articles. (AFAIK,
> schema:about is equivalent to foaf:primaryTopic, which is commonly
> used to express this relation. Case in point: see the RDF retrieved by
> dereferencing the dbpedia IRI.)
>
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1940_film)>
>>          a frbr:Work;
>>          .
>
> I suppose it is reasonable to conceive of this resource, the film, as
> being a frbr:Work, albeit the often(?) hazy distinction between Work
> and Expression has made me lean towards the latter when in doubt. Now,
> I am very much a library newbie, but I've come to think of Work as
> seemingly close to the skos:Concept class -- i.e. classifying a very
> loose conceptual subject. But that's probably another discussion..
>
>> <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>  ;
>>          .
>
> Is this how :commonEndeavor is intended to work? I would have expected
> the proposed :instanceOf to be suitable here, and that :commonEndeavor
> is more for relating two manifestations by implying a common, shared
> abstract notion of a work.
>
> [Edit: I just saw Antoine's reply, and it seems we think basically the
> same things here. :) Posting anyway, to get this on record.]


Hi Niklas,

Indeed, we're quite close :-)

Maybe two clarifications (though I think they're not really aimed at you ;-) ):

- for commonEandeavour, the "more for relating two manifestations" just above is not an "only for relating two manifestations" according to what's at http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Work-Instance , which is why I think Jeff's example is not conflicting at least with the current definition (but perhaps we want to change it)

- there's at least one advantage to this use of commonEndeavour: it would still be alright even if one decides that the DPpedia film resource is not an frbr:Work anymore. The proposed instanceOf property is right now stricter on this: http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Work-Instance

Cheers,

Antoine


>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
>

Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 21:01:39 UTC