- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:47:52 +0000
- To: Ross Singer <rxs@talis.com>
- CC: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
In a user interface there probably would be some descriptive info - same situation as for the question of do you just provide the VIAF URI for the creator of a work or the LCSH URI for a subject. If that info is coded into the system driving the user interface or effectively drawn live from those authoritative sources live, is an implementation question. ~Richard. On 17/05/2013 17:28, "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com> wrote: >I'm skeptical of this use case. You'd link from an abstract blob of >nothingness (CreativeWork) to an instance (Book at member library) with >absolutely no description of what the link is pointing to? > >-Ross. > >On 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-frb >>>>>r- >>>>> 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_Relationsh >>>>>>ip >>>>>> 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 16:48:33 UTC