Re: Voting for CreativeWork property names

Sorry, ignore my use of "expression" if you like; I just meant that simple
names for object properties, that work as either "has x" or "is x of" when
read in opposite directions, can make things easier to work with. It could
just have easily have been this:

<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> <http://proposed-schema.org/work> <
http://exampleworks.org/work/12345>.
<http://exampleworks.org/work/12345> <http://proposed-schema.org/instance> <
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>.

In other words, maybe there's a better term than "instanceOf" which
describes the relationship of <http://exampleworks.org/work/12345> to <
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>. What is <
http://exampleworks.org/work/12345>, if not a "Work"?

Alf

On 16 May 2013 23:12, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:

> Hi Alf,
>
> The approach proposed was shaped by several factors including:
>
>   *   CreativeWork describes "The most generic kind of creative work,
> including books, movies, photographs, software programs, etc."
>   *   It is the super type for many specific types such as Map, Painting,
> Movie, Book, Sculpture, etc.
>   *   Schema.org is a generic vocabulary with a broad consumer community
> therefore domain specific terms should be avoided if possible
>   *   We have specific guidance that Schema.org will never implement FRBR
>
> On that last point, your suggestion is leaning in a FRBR direction. I can
> hear the follow on "we need  manifestation & item properties"  already.
>
> Expression also has certain library-ish connotations
>
> CreativeWork->work I would suggest is a little confusing as to
>
> The hasInstance / instanceOf pair were proposed as generic and directional
> properties.
>
> Following the vote about the need of 'is', I have some sympathy with the
> suggestion of dropping the 'has' making it 'instance / instanceOf'
>
> ~Richard
>
> From: Alf Eaton <eaton.alf@gmail.com<mailto:eaton.alf@gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 16 May 2013 18:30
> To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>" <
> public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Voting for CreativeWork property names
> Resent-From: <public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, 16 May 2013 18:30
>
> On 16 May 2013 17:55, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:
> Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>
> > I have reflected these choices in the proposal page <
> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeWork_Relationships>
> > If people are happy with the proposal, I suggest that we should add some
> html examples to the turtle and then submit to public-vocabs.
>
>
> Would it be more straightforward to make is/has/of implicit and just use
> simple property names that read well in both directions? Like this, for
> example:
>
> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> <http://proposed-schema.org/work>
> <http://exampleworks.org/work/12345>.
> <http://exampleworks.org/work/12345> <
> http://proposed-schema.org/expression> <
> http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>.
>
> Perhaps this has been proposed and rejected already?
>
> Alf
>
>