Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf

I could have beec clearer, but"isRecordOf" was intended as a joke.

Regarding, "isInstanceOf", I'm reminded that GoodRelations has gr:Individual, which is disorienting for reasons similar to "instance". When GoodRelations integrated with Schema.org, this got translated to schema:IndividualProduct, which is less offensive. Perhaps we should consider a similar hair split in this case with schemap:creativeInstanceOf.

I have to say I absolutely hate instanceOf.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:28 PM, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:

> My formatting got screwed by the email system, so I attach a screenshot of
> what I intended.
> 
> ~Richard.
> 
> 
> 
> On 24/03/2013 23:14, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
> >I tend to hold the same suspicions as Antoine as to the content of those
> >'few drinks'. I believe your wife was nearer with oneOf.  However, I'm not
> >sure either convey the meaning of the generic relationship we are trying
> >to achieve.
> >
> >Personally the test I apply to these is to imagine a set of 3 or more
> >CreativeWorks thus:
> >
> >      >hasInstance           >hasInstance         >hasInstance
> >>hasInstance
> >     /            \         /             \      /             \
> >/             \
> >Story           Story-in-English       Story-in-Book
> >Story-in-pbk-book     story-in-book-in-library
> >     \             /        \             /      \             /
> >\             /
> >      isInstanceOf<          isInstanceOf<        isInstanceOf<
> >isInstanceOf<
> >
> >I know this is stretching it a bit, but doing this tends to highlight
> >where focussing in on individual use-cases hides where things are not
> >appropriate elsewhere.  In the above example I believe 'instance' works as
> >a broad compromise, where as 'record', 'derivation', 'expression',
> >'realisation', and others seem to possibly work better in one area but
> >much worse in others.
> >
> >~Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> >On 24/03/2013 12:25, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> >
> >>The thing I like about UNIMARC Authorities is that they have the notion
> >>of a "primary entity" which is the thing the record represents. If you
> >>look in the same places in MARC21 Authorities you'll find a tautology.
> >>:-/
> >>
> >>Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >>On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:58 AM, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not sure I prefer these ones...
> >>>
> >>> PS: "record", really? Did your glasses contain MARC brandy? ;-)
> >>>(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_%28eau-de-vie%29)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I described the general situation to my wife and she suggested the
> >>>>alternative: "oneOf". Hmm.
> >>>>
> >>>> After a few more drinks, we finally agreed on "isRecordOf". ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:26 AM, "Wallis,Richard"<Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have renamed the Work-Instance proposal to a more generic
> >>>>>CreativeWork
> >>>>>Relationships<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeWor
> >>>>>k
> >>>>>_Relationships> to remove the associations with those words in FRBR,
> >>>>>BIBFRAME etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In yesterday's meeting we suggested that instanceOf&  hasInstance
> >>>>>should be renamed to derivativeOf&  hasDerivative.  However discussion
> >>>>>on list has moved away from that idea so I have left it as is for the
> >>>>>moment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suggest we try some more examples and look at the wording.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we have general agreement about the need for these
> >>>>>properties. It is the names we need to settle, and appropriate
> >>>>>examples to test them against and use for explanation in the proposal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ~Richard
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>