Re: Voting for CreativeWork property names

For what it is worth, I think that use of simple object properties (such as
has and is) work quite well, especially if one intends to use them outside
the scope of library material.  I have been working on a developing a
linked data model for VRA (a XML based schema used to catalog
visual/cultural items) and having the ability to use simple object
properties such as has and is would be hugely beneficial and help eliminate
the need to create tons of custom object properties (such as hasPrint,
hasPhotograph etc). The isInstance/hasInstance, while useful for the
library community, might not be widely used by people in other fields, even
related fields such museums or archives.

Jeff Mixter
440-773-9079


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Ross Singer <rxs@talis.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Jeff Mixter
jeffmixter@gmail.com
440-773-9079