- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:16:56 +0000
- To: Ross Singer <rxs@talis.com>, "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On 17/05/2013 16:36, "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com> wrote: >So this seems to me that CreativeWork -> Book | Movie | etc. is a >relationship that you generally wouldn't want to express, since the Work >has a very high potential to be a "supernode" [1]. Instead, you're only >ever really going to want to express the inverse relationship (Book -> >CreativeWork) Depends what you are doing. If you are describing the book in your hand, yes you would want say that it is 'instanceOf' a work described either on your system or at an authoritative source. However, if you want to respond to a user/system trying to discover "War and Peace" you may want to provide a Work-level description with several 'instance' relationships to the various manifestations you have available. Equally the same 'instance' relationship would be applicable between a manifestation description and the item instances you hold. Similar situation may apply in a consortial data set with their expression descriptions linking to the various manifestations in their member libraries. ~Richard >On May 17, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/17/13 5:39 AM, Ross Singer wrote: >> >>> >>> 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, there has been discussion on the calls about the nature of this >>relationship. Richard sees it as being a relationship between a Work (of >>a FRBR/BIBFRAME-ish nature) and an instance or example of that Work >>(Manifestation). It *is* intended to be hierarchical in nature. >> >> Unfortunately, schema.org does not have a class that corresponds to >>this meaning of Work. CreativeWork is rather like MARC -- it has >>properties for a whole range of description, which, in the whole, >>describes a Manifestation with some properties that FRBR would consider >>to be Expression and Work. >> >> The expected range of InstanceOf is CreativeWork, but that means that, >>depending on the data that has been supplied, the CreativeWork in the >>triple could have the properties of FRBR:Work, BIBFRAME:Work, or an >>entire bibliographic description encompassing >>FRBR:Work/Expression/Manifestation or BIBFRAME:Work/Instance. >> >> Looking at it from a library point of view, one could create >>CreativeWork descriptions that are essentially BIBFRAME:Work, and then >>the related CreativeWork descriptions that are essentially >>BIBFRAME:Instances, and use this to connect them. That means coding a >>schema.org CreativeWork with physical description but no creator or >>subjects (a BIBFRAME:Instance) - something that I think would only be >>done by libraries. >> >> To me this is all pretty shaky within the schema.org framework, and I >>don't think it really belongs there. If libraries need a >>library-specific way to do works and instances we should keep it out of >>schema.org. >> >> My usual overly-long 2c. >> >> kc >> >> >>> >>> -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 >>>> <mailto: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 <http://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 >>>> <http://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><mailto: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><mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org >>>><mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>" >>>> <public-schemabibex@w3.org >>>> >>>><mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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_Relationship >>>>s> >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> > > >
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 16:17:26 UTC