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

Re: FRBR and schema.org

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:39:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz7MCJNTWRsPFAh1Nzujeb71pxUv1bY3Yfj7Y9sTNFh1WQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Hi Thomas,

I know schema.org has never been enclined to use [FRBR] to strucutre the
description of [CreativeWork]s.


Replicating the FRBR rules within the [generic] Schema.org vocabulary was
much discussed in the Schema Bib Extend Community Group
<https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/> when proposals were being
prepared to make Schema.org more bib friendly, and in preparing the
bib.schema.org extension.   It was concluded that reproducing those rules
would be too complex but the use case of a related hierarchy of
CreativeWorks should be representable using Schema.

To that end the properties exampleOfWork <http://schema.org/exampleOfWork>
and workExample <http://schema.org/workExample> were added to CreativeWork.

Applying them to your use case summary:

   - Abstract Legislation
      - workExample = Legislation in a specific version
   - Legislation in a specific version
   - exampleOfWork = Abstract Legislation
      - workExample = Specific translation
      - workTranslation = Specific translation (This is an option for this
      specific case from bib.schema.org)
   - Specific translation
   - exampleOfWork = Legislation in a specific version
      - workExample = Specific file format
      - translationOfWork = Legislation in a specific version (This is
      an option for this specific case from bib.schema.org)

Hope that helps.

~Richard.



Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 25 February 2016 at 12:06, Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
wrote:

> 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
> <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 <http://sparna..fr>, linkedin :
> fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart
> tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
>
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 12:40:10 UTC

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