- From: Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:06:12 +0100
- To: public-schemaorg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPugn7VwbJkMGyp_WYdENxr_Q2b2O7NEnSuprderGm-r-U9SPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello schema.org community I know schema.org has never been enclined to use [FRBR] to strucutre the description of [CreativeWork]s. I do have a need to express FRBR-based data in schema.org in the context of legislation; I would like to know where the community stands on this topic, and get some advice. # Use-Case summary - Abstract Legislation (law independant from a specific temporal version) = FRBR (complex) Work - Legislation in a specific version (= version published in Official Journal, or consolidated version from 09/22/2015, or revised version, etc.) = FRBR Work - Specific translation of that specific temporal version = FRBR Expression - Specific file format (signed PDF, HTML, PDF, XML) for that version = FRBR Manifestation A typical example is a [page for a European directive on EurLex]. This kind of metadata shall be published in JSON-LD. # Possible modeling alternatives for FRBR hierarchy I currently see 3 alternatives to model the FRBR hierarchy : 1. Don't encode the FRBR hierarchy and use a single entry of type schema:CreativeWork, or possibly combining multiple types; obvisouly not what I need; 2. Use the following tree structure : - schema:CreativeWork to represent the Complex Work level - schema:CreativeWork to represent the Work level, linked to Complex Work with schema:hasPart / schema:isPartOf - schema:CreativeWork to represent the Expression level, linked to Work with schema:workExample / schema:exampleOfWork ("Example/instance/realization/derivation of the concept of this creative work") - schema:MediaObject to represent the Manifestation level, linked to Expression with schema:associatedMedia / schema:encodesCreativeWork ("A media object that encodes this CreativeWork") I feel schema:MediaObject is intended to describe videos/audios; can it be used to describe a PDF or HTML file ? or should schema:CreativeWork be used at this level too ? ** Does this approach is correct with regards to the intended schema.org semantic ? ** 3. According to the [OCLC report], use schema:ProductOffer to describe the Manifestation. I feel this is kind of odd when Manifestation corresponds to electroni files. Can you share experience on capturing the FRBR hierarchy in schema.org ? Am I on the right track ? Thanks ! Thomas [FRBR]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records [CreativeWork]: http://schema.org/CreativeWork [Page for a European directive on EurLex]: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1456401233840&uri=CELEX%3A31980L0181 [OCLC report]: http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-05.pdf -- *Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA* Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux *connaissances* blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin : fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart tel : +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 12:11:07 UTC