Re: [schemaorg] Vocabulary for comics (#378)

Yes Dan, I agree - I was over complicating things by inventing the need for a Role subType she Role on its own would be sufficient.

Good example Jeff.

~Richard

On 12 Mar 2015, at 17:39, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> wrote:

I agree that coordination on roleNames (especially using URIs) would be a great.

Here’s a mockup I did recently to account for the instruments that individual musicians played on a music album. It was while I was mocking this up that I realized how many were covered by WikiData:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/68401641/Devon/TextExtraction.ttl

Jeff

From: Dan Scott [mailto:denials@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:33 PM
To: Wallis,Richard; Sean Petiya
Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [schemaorg] Vocabulary for comics (#378)

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 at 12:42 Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
Hi Sean,

My personal opinion is that the work you and the previously referenced draft on the Wiki <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Periodicals_and_Comics_synthesis> are within the scope of this group to discuss.

As Jeff indicated, there is some overlap and/or mismatch between your discussions of Role and similar concepts from the Library of Congress Relator Codes and WikiData.  How these terms are defined/referenced in the vocabulary is then a question.  I am always sceptical of statements such as “set that covers the major…”, because it is very difficult to a)get agreement on what is major and b) what do you do about defying the minor ones.

Your use of the term name ‘role’ conflicts with the Role<http://schema.org/Role> type in Schma.org<http://schma.org/>, which in itself is not a problem (you could use creativeRole for example).  However in covering off this need, I think it would be worth considering the creation of a ContributionRole subtype of Role which would allow the qualification of the contributor relationship between CreativeWork and Person or Organization.  Then using the roleName attribute the type of contribution could be qualified either by a URL to the Library of Congress Relators, or WikiData, etc. definitions, or, if not available, in plain text.

Erm. I thought the agreed-upon pattern for using Role (first proposed by danbri athttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Sep/0009.html) would be to apply the external vocabulary property in combination with schema:contributor (e.g. lcrel:clr) and apply schema:roleName for those consumers that might, for whatever reason, want to limit themselves to just schema.org<http://schema.org/>. E.g.:

<dl vocab="http://schema.org/" prefix="lcrel: http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/">
  <span property="contributor" typeof="Role">
    <dt><span property="roleName">Pencils</span>:</dt>
    <dd><span property="contributor">Ron Lim</span></dd>
  </span>
  <span property="contributor" typeof="Role">
    <dt><meta property="roleName" content="colorist">Colors:</dt>
    <dd><span property="contributor lcrel:clr">Chris Sotomayor</span></dd>
    </span>
</dl>

... which generates something like:

    ns1:contributor [ a ns1:Role ;
            ns1:contributor "Ron Lim" ;
            ns1:roleName "Pencils" ],
        [ a ns1:Role ;
            lcrel:clr "Chris Sotomayor" ;
            ns1:contributor "Chris Sotomayor" ;
            ns1:roleName "colorist" ];

This was the direction I was taking things with my preconference at SWIB, which even includes a Comic example: https://coffeecode.net/swib14/preconference/rdfa_exercises/6_comic_book/

We could certainly update guidance and examples to use contributor types from wikidata and other vocabularies, but I would like to ensure we're starting from a common understanding. And having put a fair amount of effort into the last iteration of Periodicals & Comics, I have some interest in Comics going forward :)