- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:45:21 -0700
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
The thing is, there is no way to prevent this from happening "in the wild" - different people will have different interpretations depending on what they have available to them. This is why the "abstract -> concrete" seems fragile to me. Someone will have two editions of Moby Dick and will want to connect them... while we can define a property for abstract <-> concrete, I doubt if we can make it clear how it is to be used. The current definition does not explicitly limit the usage to an abstract and a concrete thing. In part this is because of the way that CW has been defined -- it embodies the concrete. Some usages may only include what librarians would call "Work" properties, but there's nothing inherent in CW that would clearly separate an abstract Work from a published book. Any combination of properties is allowed, so you could have author/title/datePublished -- and wonder what exactly that represents. How do we define "abstraction" within CW? I think the problem here is CW and trying to use it for both abstract and concrete. If we have to have an abstraction in our metadata, then we may need to define one. Personally, I think it's early days to be trying to shoehorn this concept into schema.org, and I don't think it fits with what is already there. Perhaps this is a library-specific concept and we should use a library data property to make this distinction. kc On 3/27/13 7:33 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > Ouch. The possibility of this interpretation is unacceptable to me: > > A -> oneOf -> B > B -> oneOf -> A > > I can't tell up from down anymore. It might even get confused for > sideways. If that's what will happen, then I would withdraw "oneOf" from > this list and suggest a different proposal for "seeAlso". > > BTW, that seems like an oddly good idea. Now if I could just remember > where I've seen it before. ;-) > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:56 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: > >> Re: Candidates for the CreativeWork property names vote off >> >> 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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 Thursday, 28 March 2013 16:45:47 UTC