Re: Candidates for the CreativeWork property names vote off

One way to avoid the need for "more dirty approaches" would be for us to not coin an inverse but then mockup the RDFa/Microdata example to show how it can be done "backward" in the same document. It's not intuitively obvious how to do this in general anyway, so an extra example wouldn't hurt.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to add:
> 
> 10. embodies / embodiedBy
> 
> , representing levels of concretization/abstraction (and hence not
> being symmetric properties). I say "levels" since I think it's ok to
> use it to describe "partial embodiment", such as an "expression" of a
> "work", although it's probably most apt for describing a simpler
> abstract/concrete relation (like "instanceOf" in BibFrame).
> 
> Like Karen I prefer simple property names to the "has ..." form in
> general. In schema.org, there is only one such form right now
> (schema:hasPOS), and a bunch of properties as simple verbs in s-form
> (noticeably schema:mentions, which has a domain of
> schema:CreativeWork). I don't know if there is a convention in
> schema.org on inverses (no property is described with owl:inverseOf,
> so it's hard to be sure), but there are three properties ending in
> "By" (schema:affectedBy, schema:musicBy and schema:reviewedBy).
> 
> In order to not expand the list of choices too much, how about folding
> 8 and 9 into 1 and 3 respectively, and vote on the form separately?
> (Thus meaning that the alternate form of 2 is "concretizes", 4 is
> "expresses" and so on.)
> 
> (Also, I agree with Jeff that avoiding superfluous inverses is a good
> thing, at least in principle. I fear that the world of markup-embedded
> metadata may call for more dirty approaches though, and it seems to be
> a trend to sprinkle a little of everything into the mix without much
> notion of "primary data" nor expectations on consumption (including
> collation and bidirectional statement traversal). We'll see how
> various guidelines develop over time.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Niklas
> 
> (PS. Once we're settling on something, it's probably wise to declare
> what (if any) relations that suggestion has to DC (e.g. hasFormat),
> BibFrame (instanceOf) and particular properties in the various FRBR
> vocabularies actively used in the wild (including metalex). And
> perhaps what we come up with here will also influence the ongoing
> development of BibFrame.)
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> > I do think oneOf should be on the list. Also, I'm not fond of the "has..."
> > form of property names. I prefer something that sounds more like a
> > relationship than "has a thing" - So I"d add:
> >
> > 8. instantiates
> > 9. realizes
> >
> > I think that the inverse relationships imply that the relationship be
> > directional, whereas without the inverse the relationship is more open. In
> > fact,
> >
> > A -> oneOf -> B
> > B -> oneOf -> A
> >
> > makes perfect sense to me.
> >
> > Not all of the terms (hasInstance, hasConcretization) can be used in this
> > way, which is why I don't suggest a non-inverse form for each of them.
> > However, we are back to the difference between Work/Instance and
> > "commonEndeavor" (for which Jeff's 'oneOf' would be an interesting
> > substitute).
> >
> > kc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/27/13 1:04 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> >>
> >> At the risk of distracting people from my favorite, I would re-offer:
> >>
> >> oneOf
> >>
> >> without an inverse property. There are plenty of properties in
> >> Schema.org that don't have an inverse, so this shouldn't be unusual to
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:58 PM
> >>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> >>> Subject: Candidates for the CreativeWork property names vote off
> >>>
> >>> Following Antoine's suggestion and little consensus as to the names
> >>
> >> for
> >>>
> >>> the CreativeWork properties currently documented as hasInstance &
> >>> isInstanceOf - I am preparing to have a vote on it.
> >>>
> >>> So this is the first part of the process - assembling the candidates.
> >>>
> >>> Here is a few of what I remember having seen and heard in threads and
> >>> discussions - please add others I have missed or that you think of
> >>
> >> over
> >>>
> >>> the next few days.  I will close the candidate list on 31st March.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>    1.  hasInstance/instanceOf
> >>>    2.  hasConcretization/concretizationOf
> >>>    3.  hasRealization/relaisationOf
> >>>    4.  hasExpression/expressionOf
> >>>    5.  hasExample/exampleOf
> >>>    6.  hasDerivative/derivativeOf
> >>>
> >>> ~Richard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net

> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
> 
>