RE: InstanceOf/derivativeOf

Sorry, I dropped a word:

"... so that *only* DBpedia is allowed to use..."

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:05 PM
> To: 'Ross Singer'
> Cc: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: RE: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
> 
> 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/Creative
> > >> W
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 18:06:44 UTC