- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:18:02 -0400
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
FWIW, I don't think the hasX pattern is used much (or at all?) in schema.org. //Ed On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Mixter <jeffmixter@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 14:18:34 UTC