Re: Voting for CreativeWork property names

On May 16, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Alf Eaton <eaton.alf@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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"?

I'm all for this suggestion, assuming that the object will always be a Work.  I got the impression that this was kind of taking the same approach as commonThing [1], where the subjects and objects can be of ambiguous types, but maybe I'm conflating some unrelated threads here.

-Ross.

1. http://dilettantes.code4lib.org/blog/2011/11/why-do-we-obsess-over-frbr-entities/

> 
> 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
> 
>