- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:42:01 +0000
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
In my model I am thinking of several strict definitions of work, and none - that is the way of the broad generic world that Schema is trying to serve. So one set of 'rules' or school of though may say that Story & Story-in-English are the same Work others may not. 'We' can define what a Work and an Instance are but we are not in the position to impose that on the whole web. In answer to your implied 'how are you defining Work and Instance' question - I say 'however you like'. The Schema vocabulary should be able to describe both the BIBFRAME and Alan Renear's view equally well. Once we have proposed a generic way to describe relationships between things that can be described as Creative works, I believe we have a place to identify good practice in how we wold describe FRBR Works/Expressions/Manifestations/Items, BIBFRAME Works/Instances, and other well used domain specific entities using this generic vocabulary. ~Richard. On 25/03/2013 01:14, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >Richard, regarding your model, I think it depends much on how Work is >defined. If Work is defined the way it is in BIBFRAME, then: > >Story >Story in English > >are part of bibframe:Work, and the story in English is not an instance >of the story. Instance comes into use only when the Work comes into >being (in the "realization" sense). As I understand it, BIBFRAME >separates the abstract from the concrete. [1] So maybe we should define >what we mean by Work and Instance, and then look again at the terms we >use for them. > >kc >[1] However, if you read Alan Renear's work on FRBR, you may be of the >school that only frbr:Item has physicality, the others are abstractions. >Neither FRBR nor BIBFRAME feel entirely satisfactory, I must say, but do >I have something better? Nope. > >On 3/24/13 5:34 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote: >> I am not a massive fan of instanceOf and hasInstance either. >> >> But applying my test to creativeInstanceOf we get: >> >> * Story-in-English is a creativeInstanceOf Story - That sort of >>works >> * Story-in-book-in-library is a creativeInstanceOf >>Story-in-pbk-book That doesn't really work. Just stocking in a >>library is not really a creative act. >> >> The works themselves are creative, not the relationships between them. >> >> ~Richard. >> >> >> >> From: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> >> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:47:58 -0400 >> To: Richard Wallis >><richard.wallis@oclc.org<mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>> >> Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>, >><public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>> >> Subject: 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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.o >>>>>>rg>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have renamed the Work-Instance proposal to a more generic >>>>>>> CreativeWork >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Relationships<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeW >>>>>>>or >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >-- >Karen Coyle >kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >ph: 1-510-540-7596 >m: 1-510-435-8234 >skype: kcoylenet > >
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 10:42:31 UTC