- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:53:40 +0100
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Hi Jeff, Belated reply... The mail and example confused me first. Upon returning to it today I see a bit better, but am still a bit lukewarm on having something that coul be a language of its own... Even though I also realize the role trick is a bit akin as what is implied by allowing usage of properties like dc:creator with literal or URIs. (a resource is rarely created by a literal of course, so the semantics of the property differ a bit depending on the usage). Cheers, Antoine On 3/12/15 10:45 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > It was weird to me at first too and I'm sure it will get abused on the open web. OTOH, it transforms some extremely thorny problems into a simple mechanical indirection. > > I don't think in terms of "model" so much anymore. Schema.org feels more like a language now. Here's an example: > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/68401641/examples/daffodils_and_deprivation.ttl > > Jeff > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] >> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:26 PM >> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org >> Subject: Re: [schemaorg] Vocabulary for comics (#378) >> >> 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 Sunday, 15 March 2015 20:54:09 UTC