Re: Getting CreativeWork Relationships done

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for your input and offer to participate in a call - I’ll share the Doodle if enough are interested.

I agree with your 'The problems of implementing RDA have very little to do with the conceptual and data models of RDA’ comment, and your reasoning why there have been problems.  I also agree that FRBR/RDA are capable of capturing in detail most any concept relationship in this area that you can come across.

Unfortunately, or fortunately dependant on your point of view, Schema.org<http://Schema.org> is aimed at general web masters broadly across the web, not detailed and focussed description of bibliographic resources to a level comparable to library cataloguing practice.

SchemaBibExtend’s approach has been to recommend extensions/enhancements to Schema.org<http://Schema.org> which make available to the community some of the high-level principles from the bibliographic world (enabling description of Articles with Periodicals for instance) that do not require understanding of FRBR principles to use, and do not over complicate the use of many of the several non-biliographic sub-types of CreativeWork e.g.. Recipe, Diet, MusicPlaylist, Movie, etc.

It will be possible for instance to describe individual works, expressions, manifestations, items using Schema.org<http://Schema.org> - using multiple typing between CreativeWork and Product based types. However properties such as 'has expression manifested’ or 'is motion picture adaptation of’ were felt to be too specific for general adoption.  This is where the more generic exampleOfWork and workExample came from.  As the description of a FRBR Work, Expression, Manifestation, or Item [in Schema.org<http://Schema.org>]  is based either on CreativeWork or one of its sub-types, this naming makes sense.

~Richard

On 12 Feb 2014, at 12:33, Gordon Dunsire <gordon@gordondunsire.com<mailto:gordon@gordondunsire.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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