Re: Voting for CreativeWork property names

As Richard mentioned the user/system discovery would need to show
the relationship between CreativeWork and Book, Image etc.  Currently I
just model the latter of the two (i.e Book or Image) as both a CreativeWork
(or Book to be more specific) and an IndividulaProduct (that can presumably
have a serial number, barcode or call number) to indicate that this is an
item that can have an offer associated with it.

Jeff Mixter
440-773-9079


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:

>
> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


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