- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:53:14 -0400
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
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