RE: Bibex Linked Data Output Examples

Tom,

It might help to look at "Collection", which is "Ready for proposal":

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection

We haven't mocked up how this would affect Schema.org's vocabulary
specification, which is currently located here:

http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html

We do provide some clues, though, in the form of proposed subclasses and
suggested domain, range, and descriptions.

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#sub-classed_to

In this case, we gave some examples are given in Turtle:

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#Metropolitan_Mus
eum_of_Art_Collections_and_items_.28Turtle.29
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#The_Lord_of_the_
Rings_Trilogy_.28Turtle.29

Search engines will want systems coders to embed this kind of data in
HTML using RDFa, but if they want to see what that might look like
somebody could run the Turtle through a tool like
http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/.

Does this help?

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Adamich [mailto:vls@tusco.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:27 AM
> To: Wallis,Richard; 'Karen Coyle'; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Cc: em@zepheira.com
> Subject: Bibex Linked Data Output Examples
> 
> ...Being new to the group, this may be a dumb question, but has the
> desired semantic architecture-based system output of this ontology
> development exercise been schematized somewhere in the Bibex
> Repository?  Have we obtained a systems coder's view of what the links
> would look like to the end user (other than what WorldCat does with
> linked data currently)?
> 
> I appreciate all of the granular efforts associated with developing
the
> object properties here:)
> 
> Tom
> 
> Tom Adamich, MLS
> President
> Visiting Librarian Service
> P.O. Box 932
> New Philadelphia, OH 44663
> 330-364-4410
> vls@tusco.net
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:42 AM
> To: Karen Coyle; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
> 
> 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@oc
> l
> >>>>>>c.o
> >>>>>>rg>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have renamed the Work-Instance proposal to a more generic
> >>>>>>> CreativeWork
> >>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>Relationships<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Creat
> i
> >>>>>>>veW
> >>>>>>>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 14:00:17 UTC