W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > February 2016

FRBR and schema.org

From: Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:06:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPugn7VwbJkMGyp_WYdENxr_Q2b2O7NEnSuprderGm-r-U9SPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-schemaorg@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:23 UTC