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

I wish they had called it something like schema:RDFFootnote instead of schema:Role. The latter carries the stink of OMG UML superstructure. 

The former doesn't smell that pretty either, but at least it's descriptive.



> On Mar 12, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Thanks for the explanation!
> I guess I'm still too biased by RDF modeling tradition...
> I'm willing to accept that schema:member could be used to relate two persons in one dataset, and to link a person to a role in another.
> But it makes me shiver a bit when I see this sort of semantic difference in two closely related triples. I.e schema:member between a person and a role in one triple, and schema:member between a role and a person in the next one!
> 
> Antoine
> 
>> On 3/12/15 10:17 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>> Antoine,
>> 
>> As I understand it, this should be understood as "A4 is a member of A1.... and oh, by the way, I snuck in this Role node so I can say something more about the 'member' relationship ".
>> 
>> Here's the description of schema:Role:
>> 
>> "Represents additional information about a relationship or property. For example a Role can be used to say that a 'member' role linking some SportsTeam to a player occurred during a particular time period. Or that a Person's 'actor' role in a Movie was for some particular characterName. Such properties can be attached to a Role entity, which is then associated with the main entities using ordinary properties like 'member' or 'actor'."
>> 
>> It's like a get-out-of-triple-jail-free card without having to jail break RDF parsers.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:09 PM
>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: [schemaorg] Vocabulary for comics (#378)
>>> 
>>> Hi Dan, everyone,
>>> 
>>> I wonder how the comics ontology relates to some work on manga seem in
>>> the past
>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467731
>>> http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/download/979/952
>>> 
>>> About role, I have a perhaps stupid question: does anyone remembers why
>>> schema.org has a "double use" of the property that relates the role to the
>>> two resources it relates?
>>> 
>>> Reading Jeff's example:
>>> 
>>> _:A1    schema:member [
>>>        a schema:Role;
>>>        schema:roleName entity:Q5371902; # harpsichordist
>>>        schema:member _:A4;
>>>    ];
>>> 
>>> This could be understood as "the agent A4 is a member of a role that is a
>>> member of a group."
>>> 
>>> If the group had had a "guest" harpsichordist for one concert, then we would
>>> have
>>> 
>>> _:A1    schema:member [
>>>        a schema:Role;
>>>        schema:roleName entity:Q5371902; # harpsichordist
>>>        schema:member _:A4;
>>>    ];
>>> _:A1    schema:guest [
>>>        a schema:Role;
>>>        schema:roleName entity:Q5371902; # harpsichordist
>>>        schema:guest _:A5;
>>>    ];
>>> 
>>> Is there interest in having to adapt the pattern in two places, as opposed to
>>> have a same property (say, "rolePlayer") for every link between a role to the
>>> entity that plays it?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Antoine
>>> 
>>>> On 3/12/15 8:51 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>>>> 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_Comic
>>> s_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 inSchma.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 justschema.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_bo
>>>>> ok/ 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 :)
>

Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 02:15:49 UTC