RE: Getting CreativeWork Relationships done

All

 

I am a FRBR expert and would be happy to take part in the call scheduled for
next week, or via a special Doodle poll.

 

It is incorrect to say that there has been no significant uptake of FRBR.
RDA: resource description and access, is based on the FRBR model, and is
being used by an increasing number of countries around the world. The RDA
element set in RDF was recently published, so I thought it might help if I
represented some of Chaal's and Isaac's examples in ttl using FRBR/RDF. Bot
namespaces use opaque URIs, so the English labels are given:

 

@prefix frbrer: <http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/> .

@prefix rdac: <http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/c/> .

@prefix rdae: <http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/> .

@prefix rdam: <http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/m/> .

@prefix rdaw: <http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/w/> .

 

frbrer:P2025 rdfs:label "has as subject (object)"@en .

rdac:C10001 rdfs:label "Work"@en .

rdac:C10006 rdfs:label "Expression"@en .

rdac:C10007 rdfs:label "Manifestation"@en .

rdae:P20231 rdfs:label "has work expressed"@en .

rdam:P30139 rdfs:label "has expression manifested"@en .

rdaw:P10129 rdfs:label "is motion picture adaptation of (work)"@en .

rdaw:P10142 rdfs:label "is adaptation of (work)"@en .

 

Chaals said:

 

> Let's start with the premise that "Romeo and Juliet" is a Creative Work
and call it RJ

 

RDA: RJ (the intellectual and artistic conception by Shakespeare of a play
about two star-crossed lovers, Romeo and Juliet) is a Work.

 

ex:RJ rdf:type rdac:C10001 .

 

> An e-book edition of the script of "Romeo and Juliet" is a Creative Work -
lets call it eBk1

 

RDA: eBK1 is a Manifestation that embodies an Expression (a specific content
"edition" of the script created by Shakespeare, which may be distinguishable
by scholarly edition such as First Folio, or language, presence of additions
such as illustrations and glossaries, etc.), say eBk1E, of RJ.

 

ex:eBK1 rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:eBK1 rdam:P30139 ex:eBk1E .

ex:eBK1E rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:eBk1E rdae:P20231 ex:RJ .

 

> A performance of "Romeo and Juliet" at my local theatre is also a Creative
Work - lat's call it Play1

 

RDA: Play1 is an Expression of RJ, which may be distinguishable by cast,
crew, setting, etc. But Play1 is not an information object/resource unless
it has a related Manifestation such as an audio or video recording, say
Play1M. [Note: the local theatre production could also be treated as a Work
based on RJ, rather than an Expression of RJ, but let's keep it simple.]

 

ex:Play1 rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:Play1 rdae:P20231 ex:RJ .

ex:Play1M rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:Play1M rdam:P30139 ex:Play1 .

 

> A broadcast of the movie "Romeo and Juliet" (the 1996 Baz Luhrman version,
which uses "the original text") is also a Creative Work - let's call it Baz.

 

RDA: Baz (the intellectual and artistic conception by Lurhman of a film of
Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet) is a Work. The work is realized as a
motion picture Expression which may be distinguishable by cut, etc., say
BazE, which is embodied in a broadcast Manifestation, say BazM.

 

ex:Baz rdf:type rdac:C10001 .

ex:Baz rdaw:P10129 ex:RJ .

ex:BazE rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:BazE rdae:P20231 ex:Baz .

ex:BazM rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:BazM rdam:P30139 ex:BazE .

 

> Meanwhile, I also have a DVD of West Side Story ("DVD"), a Vinyl Record of
the original Broadway Cast performing it ("Record") and a script, that
amounts to a musical score with stage directions and interstitial
conversation ("score").

 

RDA: The DVD is a Manifestation distinguished by video encoding format, say
WSSM, that embodies a motion picture Expression, say WSSE, of an
intellectual and artistic conception by Wise and Robbins of a film of an
intellectual and artistic conception by Bernstein of a musical work
adaptation, say WSSStageW of Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet), say WSSW.

 

ex:WSSM rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:WSSStageW rdf:type rdac:C10001 .

ex:WSSE rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:WSSW rdf:type rdac:C10001 .

ex:WSSStageW rdf:type rdac:C10001 .

ex:WSSM rdam:P30139 ex:WSSE .

ex:WSSE rdae:P20231 ex:WSSW .

ex:WSSW rdaw:P10129 ex:WSSStageW .

ex:WSSStageW rdaw:P10142 ex:RJ .

 

RDA: The Vinyl Record is a Manifestation distinguished by audio encoding
format, say WSSStageM, of an Expression distinguished by cast, performance
date, etc., say WSSStageE, of the Work WSSStageW.

 

ex:WSSStageM rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:WSSStageE rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:WSSStageM rdam:P30139 ex:WSSStageE .

ex:WSSStageE rdae:P20231 ex:WSSStageW .

 

RDA: The script is a Manifestation distinguished by being printed or
manuscript text on paper, say WSSScriptM, of an Expression distinguished by
version, form of notation, etc., say WSSScriptE, of the Work WSSStageW.

 

ex:WSSScriptM rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:WSSScriptE rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:WSSScriptM rdam:P30139 ex:WSSScriptE .

ex:WSSScriptE rdae:P20231 ex:WSSStageW .

 

Isaac said:

 

> Let's imagine you take a picture of a statue that happens to be a cast of
the Thinker by Rodin. The photo is a representation of an example of the
work "Thinker", where the latter is meant as an abstract thing (the concept
of the Thinker as Rodin thought it even before making the first instance).

 

RDA: The picture is a Manifestation distinguishable by being a photographic
print or digital file using a specific image encoding format, say PhotoM, of
an Expression distinguishable by its image content such as black-and-white
or colour, etc., say PhotoE, of an intellectual and artistic conception by
the photographer of capturing an image, say PhotoW, of a specific
Manifestation, distinguished by material, production number, etc., say
CastM, of an Expression distinguishable by its cast, size, appearance, etc.,
say CastE, of the intellectual and artistic conception by Rodin of a
sculpture work called "Le Penseur", say ThinkW. The photograph has the
specific cast of the sculpture as its subject. The RDA "subject"
relationship is still in development, so the FRBR equivalent is used.

 

ex:PhotoM rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:PhotoE rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:PhotoW rdf:type rdac:C10001 .

ex:CastM rdf:type rdac:C10007 .

ex:CastE rdf:type rdac:C10006 .

ex:ThinkW rdf:type rdac:C10001 .

ex:PhotoM rdam:P30139 ex:PhotoE .

ex:PhotoE rdae:P20231 ex:PhotoW .

ex:CastM rdam:P30139 ex:CastE .

ex:CastE rdae:P20231 ex:ThinkW .

ex:PhotoW frbrer:P2025 ex:CastM .

 

Perhaps one could say that the picture is also a representation of the
abstract work too. But others would disagree: i.e. your picture could also
"represent" a dog having a pee on the sculpture's pedestal, the "example" is
supposed to be respecting the original intention of the work better.

 

RDA: An abstract work has no form, so cannot be represented by an agent
(taking a photograph) other than its creator. Its creator has to realize the
work in some Expression, and that Expression has to be embodied in a
Manifestation, before any other agent can represent it. The photographer is
always creating an original Work, separate from the subject or content of
the image. The analysis of the subject of an image is, well, subjective. The
photographer might label the print or image file with an indication of the
intended subject, but a compiler of a collection of photographs of dogs may
well select the image, and each person looking at the image may well see a
different subject and label it with a different term in a folksonomy.

 

I don't know how this relates to the schemabibex properties, but I know
FRBR/RDA can represent any bibliographic information object I've ever come
across.

 

The problems of implementing RDA have very little to do with the conceptual
and data models of RDA. They are caused by the lack of suitable encoding
formats (other than RDF), the lack of operational infrastructure for RDF
applications (which affects all domain models), the lack of operational
infrastructure for domain models which disaggregate the monolithic entity
Resource of ISBD and MARC (with the same impact on BIBFRAME as on FRBR and
RDA), and the difficulties of parsing legacy records based on Resource into
RDA's WEMI (or BIBFRAME's WI).

 

Fwiw, I think the omission of the FRBR entity Expression from schemabibex
and BIBFRAME will impair the representation of the complex relationships
illustrated by these examples.

 

Apologies for typos, etc. in the turtle.

 

Cheers

 

Gordon

 

From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org] 
Sent: 12 February 2014 11:41
To: Antoine Isaac
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: Getting CreativeWork Relationships done

 

On the FRBR point, my [non-librarian] view is that FRBR has provided a great
service in establishing a verbal vocabulary for discussing these entity
relationships in the bibliographic world.  When looking at use-cases, being
able to discuss the potential relationships between Work-ish things and
Manifestation-y things in an understandable way is helpful.  

 

However, translating into widely implementable technical and/or ontological
solutions, appears to have been far less successful.  Unfortunately when the
theory hits the road it becomes clear that sufficient real resources (or the
data we have in one place about them) do not fit well into the rules of FRBR
to make implementation difficult.

</OPINION>

 

Comments on Chaals cases:

 

1. Antoine is the best person to support this, but FWIW I agree with him.  A
painting copy of an original painting or sculpture is a CreativeWork in its
own right with its own creator, createdDate etc. this new work is a
representationOf the original not the original in a different format.
Following the same principles, a photograph is a CreativeWork that is a
representationOf the subject of the image - this leads me to think that the
range of representationOf could be 'Thing' so we could describe a portrait
as being the representation of a Person.

 

2. I agree that the definition of commonEndeavour is a bit vague.  This is
probably because it was designed to cover the use-case of "I know these
CreativeWorks are related in some way but either I do not have the data, or
there is no specific property, I can use to describe it."   The danger being
that implementers may over use it as the easy option, or not use it at all
because they don't understand its purpose.  Maybe we drop it from this round
and see if the need arrises later, maybe we find a better name and
description (vaguelyAssociatedWith, relatedTo, sameCoreIdeaAs, commonBasis) 

 

3.  Yes.

 

4.  Agree.

 

Working through the examples, I am mostly in agreement - couple of comments:

 

I would say that  following on from {DVD,Record,Script} -> basedOn -> RJ

some of your relationships are a bit tenuous - I would expect something like
this:

 

DVD-> exampleOfWork -> West Side Story the movie

DVD -> alternateFormat -> Netflix stream of West Side Story the movie

Record -> exampleOfWork -> West Side Story Soundtrack recording

Record -> alernateFormat -> MP3 West Side Story Soundtrack recording

Script -> alternateFormat -> Scripte braille edition.

 

The key to alternateFormat is that the content of work at each end of the
relationship should be the same.  So the movie would almost certainly not be
an alternateFormat of the book, etc.

 

For alternateFormat the same (reversed) triple would be applicable at each
end of the relationship.

 

 

Now I have had to postpone the SchemaBibEx meeting to next week we have an
opportunity to discuss it then.

 

I am also happy to organise/participate in a specific call to discuss this.
I could organise it for Friday this week of Monday next week.  Any takers
and I'll put up Doodle to agree a time.

 

 

~Richard

 

On 12 Feb 2014, at 07:45, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:





?  It's been around over 15 years without getting any traction and even the
library community appears to be moving away from it with their new "next big
thing," BIBFRAME



Itself derived from the FRBR ideas. Granted, we are pretty much all
uncomfortable (to say the least) with the full FRBR model.
But it has been influential in shaping the new metadata approaches in
library-land.
Probably 15 years ago almost every librarian dealing with metadata was
thinking in terms of about self-contained, one-size-fits-all records. Do you
think that the agreement now on more resource- and link-based models
happened only because of the irresistible traction of RDF and OWL?

Now of course the question is how to get inspiration from FRBR *and* remain
simple enough. Not an easy thing, especially if we have to do it over email
where sub-threads like this one will prevent us from focusing on the
original problem ;-)

Cheers,

Antoine







+1
Thanks,
Shlomo
Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
-----Original Message-----
From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 01:25
To: Tom Morris
Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile; Wallis,Richard; Vicki Tardif Holland;
public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: Getting CreativeWork Relationships done
Hi Tom,



   Is there a group call, soon, where Chaals and a couple FRBR experts could
attend?


Is FRBR the right target here?  It's been around over 15 years without
getting any traction and even the library community appears to be moving
away from it with their new "next big thing," BIBFRAME.

And yet most of these properties Chaals commented on are inspired by FRBR
considerations. I was hoping someone with the right FRBR expertise could
provide with a good wording, and especially, the clear examples.




I've looked at the "common endeavor" a few times and have never been able to
associate it in my mind with a real world concept that I'm familiar with.  I
know about books being revised with new editions, translated into other
languages, adapted for the  stage, those plays being performed, the
performances being filmed, screenplays being written using the original
story, etc, but common endeavor?  It seems to add complexity without any
additional value.

So better have specific relations for your 6 cases? I have doubts,
especially considering that in many cases the data needed to elicit a
specific relation just won't be available. These links could be instead
produced by automatic techniques, which may only be able just to find a
generic link. (well, if you have an algo that produce your on top of
existing records, please send it around!) And of coruse most users don't
really care: as long as it's derived from the same work, and it has the
right format (text, video), it may be interesting, say, for Amazon-like
scenarios.




I agree with many of Chaals' points including the call for the
simplification and less redundancy.

Yes, I agree too, which is why I like the idea behind 'commonEandeavour'
(but I'm not found the name...) compared to the one of finding any specific
property that a generic link may replace handsomely for many cases.



Finally, I agree with Dan that, in many ways, an email discussion is
preferable to an ephemeral phone call.

I agree on the principle. Looking forward to seeing who will jump in and
answer all of Chaal's points (some of them are not so complex, just
time-consuming).
A.




Some other comments:

- I don't see where the translator's name or the date of translation gets
stored.  I'm assuming that the language pair is encoded as part of the
entities on either end of the link.
- I'm not sure I see why a photo of the Mona Lisa should get some special
treatment as compared to a photo of a sailboat.  Aren't the Mona Lisa and
the sailboat just the subjects of the creative work that is the photographic
image?
- the existing CreativeWork definition is kind of a jumble.  I don't know if
cleaning it up is out of scope, but things like the isBasedOnUrl property
are going to clash with any new stuff in this space.

Finally, I agree with Dan that, in many ways, an email discussion is
preferable to an ephemeral phone call.

Tom