Re: CreativeWork relationships

 think we would have as many answers to Chaarls' questions as we have people on these lists.

You are right Karen.  I think a recent comment Guha made in another discussion is pertinent here:

We can define terms as precisely as we would like, but in the end, the meaning is in the usage. And in practice, webmasters cannot be expected to dive into nuances as much as this group does (or would like them to).

And in a super distributed system like the web, we can be very very sure that almost every integrity constraint will be violated!

What are we trying to accomplish? - Well, in light of the above, if we are trying to create a set of rules, and properties,  that should be followed/used in a defined set of detailed circumstances we are embarking on wishful thinking.

I believe our goal should be to provide a set of tools (CreativeWork properties) that can be used by web masters/data publishers, to describe their resources to the best of their ability.  Usage over time, and good old web based [copy-paste-tweak] learning, establishing de facto practices.

A good analogy for this being the game of golf - you get a bag of assorted clubs, each designed to be more useful in some situations than others.  It is left up to the golfer how and when she uses them.  Practice soon shows you that a driver club is not much use in a sand trap, and the sand-wedge doesn't get the ball far from the tee. Watching others you play alongside helping you to identify other useful techniques.  'Serious' golfers often complain that they really need that special club to become even better. Yet for most that play, the dozen clubs in their bag are both sufficient for most situations whilst not being too heavy to carry around.

Specialist groups such as librarians, those concerned with information in academia, those focussed on describing accessibility constraints, retailers, etc. can all help with documentation and examples of how a selection of general purpose properties can be applied in describing resources from their domains.  However, the best we can offer is guidance and examples. If we are looking for rules, firstly it will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to get agreement between those from different domains on this list, and secondly they will be not understood and therefore not followed as schema spreads across the web.


~Richard

On 14 Oct 2013, at 16:49, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:

Unfortunately, I think we would have as many answers to Chaarls' questions as we have people on these lists. The answers that Richard gives make perfect sense, but they are not the answers that a library cataloger would give, and an archivist's answers would be different to the librarian's. Both would probably be different from those of a seemingly average library or archive user.

What is it that we need to accomplish? and to what extent is the use case affected by the precision of these relationships (or the lack thereof)?

kc



On 10/14/13 7:29 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
As Chaarls points out there are a few types of these relationships being
grouped together here, some more concrete than others.

There are what I would term the known derivation relationships between
instances of the same thing (this is an example of that, the hardback
book edition of the work, etc.)
eg.
<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57714007>
a schema:Book;
schema:name "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince"@en;
schema:author <http://viaf.org/viaf/116796842>;
schema:exampleOf
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince>
.

There are the less exact relationships - isBasedOn, commonEndeavour, etc.
eg.
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/
<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57714007>>
a schema:Movie;
schema:name "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince (2009)"@en;
schema:director <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0946734
<http://viaf.org/viaf/116796842>>;
schema:isBasedOn
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince>;
schema:commonEndeavor <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57714007>
.

There are derived relationships - translationOf, representationOf, etc.
eg.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo>
a schema:Sculpture;
contentLocation "Louvre Museum, Paris, France";
schema:dateCreated "Approx. 130-100 BC"
.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/elhombredepan/4708103537/>
a schema:ImageObject;
schema:creator <http://www.flickr.com/photos/elhombredepan/>;
schema:isRepresentationOf <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo>;
schema:dateCreated "2010-04-07"
.
I've added isRepresentationOf to the list.


Taking a stab answering Chaarls specific examples:

West Side Story, the Musical, is a version of Romeo and Juliet. Is
this what you mean by "isBasedOn"?

It is either isBasedOn or isAdaptionOf


West Side Story, the movie, is a version of the Musical, but there is
a change to make the format. Is this a format of West Side Story, and
is using a

It would be based on, or an adaption of, the musical

Wikipedia entry URL as the source a sensible thing to do?

Depends on the Wikipedia description I suppose - is it the generic work
it is describing or a specific example (the musical or the film)


Blade Runner is an adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,
and often called the book of the movie. But it is not really as close
to the original as West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet. Film
adaptations are often pretty different from their original sources.
Shirley Valentine is another example of a movie and play that are not
all that close to each other, despite being very recongisably the
same work.

May be we need 'wasInspiredBy'


Romeo and Juliet, the Baz Luhrmann movie, is a version of Romeo and
Juliet in a different format. Is this a workExample?

I do not know the Baz Luhrmann movie, but if the text spoken by the
actors is that of the play, yes I think it would be.  In the same way
that an audiobook would be a workExample of the book.  If however the
text had been adapted for the movie (making it a different work, with an
additional author) then it would be basedOn.


There are also various text versions of Romeo and Juliet. I'm
guessing they are all candidates for workExample/exampleOfWork.

In principle yes. These well known, often copied, often historical works
are a challenge for such analysis as they are often changed in the
copying and translation enough to make them not the original work.  With
the fairly concrete wokExample and the more vague adaptionOf and basedOn
she should be able to satisfy the needs of most cases.  Examples &
documentation should help here.


The other set of use cases are where there is no clear "original".

For example, I write a new, interactive internet site telling a story
about swans and ostriches. It is natively video, or text, or text and
audio, and so on - you decide what pieces you actually view.

I could describe the resource as having multiple versions, each with
different characteristics (format, language, ...) but the URL is the
same. I think I want to use named graphs to distinguish these cases.
(I want to do the same thing to handle the fact that there are
effectively multiple versions of the resource with different
accessibility characteristics, but the URL where you get the resource
is the same).

Depends on how stand-alone each component is.  I would suggest each part
is an individual CreativeWork, with probably a commonEndeavor
relationship, and they are all partOf a group work.

I can't see us getting named graph capability in Schema anytime soon ;-)


I think it would be useful to flesh out my use cases a bit more, so
they can be worked up into concrete examples with answers. But so far
I don't see:

- How do I handle the distinction between "X is an original. Y is
based somehow on X" and "X has multiple representations because it is
true multimedia"?
- What is the difference between a play or film that is an adaptation
of a book, and something that is just a retelling of the same story?
How does that compare with a resource that is an attempt to adapt as
literally as possible in a different format? (And how does that
compare with translation - is the best translation of the Odyssey
alliterative verse or blank verse or hexameter or prose)?

Much of this is down to the metadata creator - we need to give them
enough tools to do the job but not too many to cause significant confusion.


~Richard

On 14 Oct 2013, at 09:11, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>
<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:

Hi all,

For what it's worth, here are examples of 'core' properties that can
hold between Creative work in our data model in the Europeana initiative:
-- dc:subject and edm:isRepresentationOf for "aboutness" links (Mona
Lisa and a historical picture of Mona Lisa that represents it)
-- edm:realizes, which is quite FRBR-related (An item of the
Gutenberg’s edition realizes the Bible)
-- edm:isSimilarTo: covering true and "questionable" cases of
derivation in the FRBR sense. Including sub-properties
edm:isDerivativeOf (for real derivation cases like re-working,
extension--this is a sub-property of dcterms:isVersionOf, targeted
perhaps rather at CreativeWorks) , edm:incorporated (for inclusion /
re-use of works within others) and edm:isSuccessorOf (for "sequels")

I can contribute more documentation and example for these, but the
mail would be long then. So will wait till there's interest. For the
curious, however, you can have a look at our quite dry PDF reference
at [1].

Then you can have more general links (dc:relation), general part-whole
relation (dcterms:hasPart), citation (dcterms:references). These ones
are clearly in schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> already.

@Chaals: the criteria for judging what counts what as an intellectual
work, and thus a derivation, a version, or a mere change of format,
are very fuzzy. I'm not sure we can give one answer. E.g. for
translators of historic texts a translation would surely count as a
creative work, and what is a good translation is a matter of
research-level debates. For more recent book publishing cases, the
translation may not be such a big deal... but not always: in French
the first translation of Edgar Poe was done by Charles Baudelaire, and
it is acknowledged an important work for the later fame of both authors.

Things may be more straightforward for format-specific variants, as
you write: "resource that is an attempt to adapt as literally as
possible in a different format", as in accessibility scenarios.
For this a property like dcterms:hasFormat could be used. And I think
the different variations should have their different URIs. Maybe one
want to serve a common access URI for them (say, typed as an OAI-ORE
Aggregation [2]) but that's a story slightly different than creating
the RDF graph for these different versions, their attributes and the
links between them, which needs separate URIs.

Cheers,

Antoine

[1]
http://pro.europeana.eu/documents/900548/0d0f6ec3-1905-4c4f-96c8-1d817c03123c
[2] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/primer

Hi Richard,

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 00:15:43 +0200, Wallis,Richard
<Richard.Wallis@oclc.org <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:

One of the topics we have discussed in the SchemaBibEx group has
been properties to describe some relationships between CreativeWorks.

In several recent threads on public-vocabs there has also been
mention of relationships between CreativeWork such as adaptionOf,
isBasedOn, etc.

It is clear therefore that this topic is more broadly relevant than
the bibliographic focus of SchemaBibEx

Yep.

To help the discussion in this area I have produced a small list of
these proposed properties for CreativeWork, which have CreativeWork
as a range.

As it was assembled by trawling threads which I remembered included
such mentions, it is almost certainly not a comprehensive list, it
also includes some that are very similar in intention.

Yes. In particular, I have two different sets of use cases in mind.
One revolves around understanding that something is like something
else, but really not the same.

West Side Story, the Musical, is a version of Romeo and Juliet. Is
this what you mean by "isBasedOn"?

West Side Story, the movie, is a version of the Musical, but there is
a change to make the format. Is this a format of West Side Story, and
is using a Wikipedia entry URL as the source a sensible thing to do?

Blade Runner is an adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,
and often called the book of the movie. But it is not really as close
to the original as West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet. Film
adaptations are often pretty different from their original sources.
Shirley Valentine is another example of a movie and play that are not
all that close to each other, despite being very recongisably the
same work.

Romeo and Juliet, the Baz Luhrmann movie, is a version of Romeo and
Juliet in a different format. Is this a workExample?

There are also various text versions of Romeo and Juliet. I'm
guessing they are all candidates for workExample/exampleOfWork.

The other set of use cases are where there is no clear "original".

For example, I write a new, interactive internet site telling a story
about swans and ostriches. It is natively video, or text, or text and
audio, and so on - you decide what pieces you actually view.

I could describe the resource as having multiple versions, each with
different characteristics (format, language, ...) but the URL is the
same. I think I want to use named graphs to distinguish these cases.
(I want to do the same thing to handle the fact that there are
effectively multiple versions of the resource with different
accessibility characteristics, but the URL where you get the resource
is the same).

I think it would be useful to flesh out my use cases a bit more, so
they can be worked up into concrete examples with answers. But so far
I don't see:

- How do I handle the distinction between "X is an original. Y is
based somehow on X" and "X has multiple representations because it is
true multimedia"?
- What is the difference between a play or film that is an adaptation
of a book, and something that is just a retelling of the same story?
How does that compare with a resource that is an attempt to adapt as
literally as possible in a different format? (And how does that
compare with translation - is the best translation of the Odyssey
alliterative verse or blank verse or hexameter or prose)?

cheers

Chaals

Comments on the list, omissions, suggestions are invited so that we
can get some consensus around a hopefully small set, to cover many
circumstances, to propose as additions to CreativeWork.

The list is currently hosted on the SchemaBibEx Wiki:
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Schema_CreativeWork_Relationships

~Richard.







--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet