RE: InstanceOf/derivativeOf

One of the things that may be messing with our heads is the desire to
name inverse properties. I think there are plenty of times in natural
language where we have a perfectly sensible way to express a
relationship in one direction that seems awkward in the inverse. Is that
part of the problem? If so, we should keep in mind that inverse
relationships are more of a convenience than a necessity in RDF.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:45 AM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
> 
> Richard, the first part of your message:
> 
> On 3/25/13 3:42 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> defies this second part. If we don't have definitions for Work and
> Instance then there is no way to do what you say below -- you can't
> align things with other things that are not defined. Yes, it is a
> working definition, but without a working definition we have nothing
to
> propose. And, in fact, every property in schema.org has a definition.
> 
> The definition there now, and the example, leads to certain
> conclusions:
> 
> "Instance/realization/derivation of the concept of this creative work.
> eg. The paperback edition."
> 
> This is very specific, and has within it some strong assumptions about
> CW. Is this what we want? Can we explore how it would be used with CW
> to interact with other models? (btw, "isOneOf" is making a lot of
sense
> to me now).
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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 14:54:03 UTC