- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:32:19 -0700
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
On 3/25/13 4:00 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote: > > > I am not suggesting that we use Schema.org to align terms in other > vocabularies. I believe that we should be striving for a set of > properties that would enable us to describe the relationships between > entities that can be described as a schema: CreativeWork. To me, that does not translate to "instanceOf." As we can see with other comments here, folks are taking instanceOf to be a relationship between an abstraction and something concrete (the instance). If I am not mistaken, using your definition "describe the relationships between entities that can be described as a schema: CreativeWork," instanceOf could be used between any two (or more) things that are described with schema.org/CreativeWork properties (or any of the sub-classes of that). As I've said before, this implies that there is not necessarily a dominant and a subordinate thing in the relationship. These could be what FRBR calls work/work or expression/expression relationships -- as opposed to the layered relationships of WEMI. If it is truly a relationship (of undetermined type) between entities that can be described using schema/CreativeWork then it would be best not to have directionality or subordination (one is an instance of the other) but a term expressing commonality (these two have something in common). I believe that abstract/concrete can be revealed by the actual properties used. A description with only an author and a title is necessarily abstract; one that includes the publisher and date is more concrete. The description itself is the indicator of the degree of abstraction. If this is the intention of the property -- to make a non-specific connection between any two or more CreativeWorks -- then it in fact negates BIBFRAME's Work/Instance and FRBR's WEMI because it is not a relationship between parts of a single description, as those two are, but it is a relationship between CW descriptions. That aspect *is* covered in FRBR in the entity/entity relationships but so far is not evident in BIBFRAME -- although it may come under the Annotation model. I feel we need to clarify this: is this a CW/CW relationship, without any concept of "broader" or "narrower"? kc > > As we have identified in previous conversations bibframe:Work & > bibframe:Instance and frbr:Work, frbr:Expression, frbr:Manifestation, > frbr:Item (and the entity types in that model only existing in my head) > all can be described as a schema:CreativeWork. > > So my model, the BIBFRAME model, and frbr are there to test how good, what > we come up with, is at providing those descriptions. > > > "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? > > It is only draft wording - in retrospect it would be simpler if we dropped > 'the concept of'. > > > > Can we explore how it would be used with CW to > > interact with other models? > > > That is sort of what I am suggesting above we are/should be doing. > However I would use 'usefully be used to describe' instead of 'interact > with'. > > ~Richard. > > > On 25/03/2013 21:01, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I don't like "instance" either. >> Reading the thread I was at one point tempted by "incarnation" but if you >> think it's too "physical" then we're screwed. >> Anyway: how about giving us one week to write all the terms on a wiki >> page and then give us one week to vote? >> I'm afraid otherwise the situation won't really evolve, unless a miracle >> happen and someone finds a perfect term. >> >> Antoine >> >> >>> I'm not sure where inversion fits in here, so at least in my mind that >>> isn't an issue. What I think Richard is aiming at is a generic way to >>> link information about creative works, regardless of their level of >>> specificity. If that is the case, then "instanceOf" is, IMO, >>> inappropriate in a number of ways >>> - "instance" implies a single *thing* not a concept or abstraction or >>> class, and there can definitely be relationships between creative works >>> at all of their levels >>> - "instance" is being used in BIBFRAME for something much more concrete >>> and therefore folks will assume (consciously or not) a BIBFRAME >>> definition >>> - instance seems to have subordination of one thing to another, at >>> least in the common usage of the term. However, in many cases there is >>> no "primary thing" for another to be an instance of. You just have two >>> things that are related. >>> >>> I'm back to "commonEndeavor" (or something that means approximately the >>> same thing) at this point, which is broad and vague. However, I am at >>> this point unclear on the use case for this relationship, without which >>> all of this is just theoretical. Here are some cases that I can imagine: >>> >>> - xISBN: the relationship of all of the things in an xISBN cluster to >>> each other and/or to the cluster >>> - a digital copy of the text and a record in a library database, not >>> necessarily the same manifestation but "close enough" >>> - a translation of a text >>> - a performance of a musical work >>> - a reprint of a book >>> - a journal article in a journal and the pre- or post-print online >>> >>> To what extent are these immediate needs for bibliographic data in >>> schema.org? I'd say they are not a #1 priority, but that's why I'm >>> asking about use cases. >>> >>> I can't figure out what we would do with WEMI or BIBFRAME since those >>> are "directional" -- that is, they have specific relationships with a >>> specific order. (I have vague hopes that we never have to model FRBR, >>> but that's just me.) >>> >>> kc >>> >>> On 3/25/13 7:53 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) 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. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 14:32:45 UTC