Re: Voting for CreativeWork property names

Jeff, I'm referring to Richard's use case:

A webpage (presumably from a search result or something) which contains a CreativeWork (let's say 'To Kill a Mockingbird').

Richard's example is that this CreativeWork could have links to specific instance types (perhaps at other libraries/webpages): Book, Movie, TV Series (I don't know, mini-series, maybe), etc.

However, the implication is that this would be nothing more than an <a> tag with the library's name as the anchor text (or something) with an itemprop='instance' attribute meaning there's no way to define the Book, Movie, and/or TV Series to make the link back to the CreativeWork.  I'm skeptical that such a scenario would actually exist, if for no other reason than it would be fairly atrocious UX.

-Ross.

On May 17, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Jeff Mixter <jeffmixter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ross (this is a repeat email for you, I forgot to reply to all),
> 
> I think I might be misunderstanding the issue but:
> 
> This use case is already dealt with in schema.org when it comes to digital items.  I think it is perfectly acceptable to describe a digital image of the Mona Lisa as being related to the physical painting through the object property schema:encodesCreativeWork.  Obviously there is an issue in linking to the the physical Mona Lisa since it does not exist on the Web but so it goes. To point to the physical thing, you could add #PhysicalThing the end of the URI or better yet the Louvre could set up VIAF style service that just 303 redirects to a page about the Mona Lisa.
> 
> Let me know if I am lost in left field in addressing your question.
> 
> Jeff Mixter
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:28 PM, 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-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