- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:05:04 -0400
- To: "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com>
- Cc: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Are you saying that Linked Data should be constrained so that DBpedia is allowed to use dbpedia URIs as subjects in RDF statements? Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Singer [mailto:rxs@talis.com] > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 12:58 PM > To: Young,Jeff (OR) > Cc: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-schemabibex@w3.org > Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:53 AM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> > wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Well, yes, for RDF this is generally true, I'm not sure it holds as > well if you think of it in the context of linked data. After all, if > you're following your nose, the lack of bidirectional relationships > means that a resource basically might as well not exist from a certain > route. > > -Ross. > > > 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 18:05:34 UTC