Re: Suggestion for new category

I agree with Richard's line of thinking that most of this can be inherited
from CreativeWork and be the workPerformed in a TheaterEvent.

Do you have examples of sites, which would benefit from this new type? It
may be easiest to work through some use cases.

- Vicki

Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com


On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> This class might help tease apart some of the cases:
>
>
>
> https://schema.org/CreativeWorkSeries
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> *From:* Timothy Cole [mailto:t-cole3@illinois.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:45 AM
> *To:* 'Jacob Jett' <jjett2@illinois.edu>; 'Richard Wallis' <
> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
> *Cc:* public-schemaorg@w3.org; 'Han, Myung-Ja' <mhan3@illinois.edu>;
> 'Sarol, Maria Janina' <mjsarol@illinois.edu>; 'Kinnaman, Alex Olivia' <
> kinnama2@illinois.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: Suggestion for new category
>
>
>
> Taking Jacob's concern to slightly higher level of abstraction:
>
>
>
> We've been running up against questions regarding where to describe
> attributes of the 'production'. The play Macbeth is clearly a CreativeWork,
> and is a likely object of a TheaterEvent workPerformed predicate.  A single
> performance of MacBeth, or arguably a continuous run of performances of
> MacBeth at the same venue, is a TheaterEvent.  But there have been numerous
> productions of MacBeth which are developed over time (i.e., not just an
> event but a series of events often in different venues) that don't seem to
> fit Event, but also don't seem to fit CreativeWork and don’t seem quite
> right as object of workPerformed predicate.  There is a similar issue for
> Dance productions, musical productions, etc.  Comparing the list of
> CreativeWork sub-classes and Event sub-classes suggest a certain
> arbitrariness about which kinds of performance productions are Events and
> which are CreativeWork.  There are seeming overlaps – e.g.,
> http://schema.org/actor  (property used with sub-classes of CreativeWork)
> vs. http://schema.org/performer (property used with Events). If there is
> a consistent distinction it seems to be availability of a MediaObject
> representation of the performance – commonplace for TV episodes, Radio
> episodes, Movies, etc., but of course this distinction is increasingly
> artificial as stills, audio and videos of plays, dances, music performances
> are increasingly commonplace.
>
>
>
> For now we're tending to use TheaterEvent rather than try to create a new
> CreativeWork sub-class, which does not seem the right solution at least for
> our  use case.  But perhaps there needs to be a new sub-class of Thing
> which would be better for expressing attributes of a production of a
> CreativeWork?
>
>
>
> -Tim Cole
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com <jgjett@gmail.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Jacob Jett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:26 AM
> *To:* Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
> *Cc:* public-schemaorg@w3.org; Han, Myung-Ja <mhan3@illinois.edu>; Sarol,
> Maria Janina <mjsarol@illinois.edu>; Kinnaman, Alex Olivia <
> kinnama2@illinois.edu>; Cole, Timothy W <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Suggestion for new category
>
>
>
> Sorry, I think you misunderstand. I get how to attach the contributors to
> the various structures. That's not so difficult. The question is how to
> attach the contributions?
>
>
>
> For example, I have the stage notes for a particular performance of Vanity
> Fair. How does that attach to the Theatrical Event? Simply saying that the
> stage notes are 'isPartOf' completely loses the role that the stage notes
> play. There seems to be a need for some additional properties (which is the
> case anyway, as there is no difference between a Theatrical Event and an
> Event).
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Jacob Jett
> Research Assistant
> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> (217) 244-2164
> jjett2@illinois.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Richard Wallis <
> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>
> You are right to identify the differences between ‘the play’, productions
> of the play, and performances of the production.
>
>
>
> Much of the structure of this is availably via CreativeWork properties
> such as hasPart, isPartOf, exampleOfWork, workExample, plus the temporal
> aspects of Role that would allow you to associate individual contributors
> to specific stages of the process.
>
>
>
> Based upon established Schema.org patterns, I would advise separating the
> event (place/time) aspects from the Creative aspects.
>
>
>
> As to associating elements of the process that contributed to the combined
> work, but not part of the final play - I think that is down to how you
> describe those individual preproduction parts.
>
>
>
> Working on some examples as was done for Books, Articles, TVSeries &
> TVSeason, etc. would help work through these questions and help support a
> proposal for a Play type
>
>
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
>
>
> Richard Wallis
>
> Founder, Data Liberate
>
> http://dataliberate.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dataliberate.com&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=n11esY2fXcOQItBGgO6ia9eUAptQ7Jash073SxzJ8To&s=HecD9Qh56rVFMDyIln7qEsoeJ2KAMBr-a5HBKR_xQHI&e=>
>
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_richardwallis&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=n11esY2fXcOQItBGgO6ia9eUAptQ7Jash073SxzJ8To&s=1cLP6jzSLdYFF8KxQZZgIPxGduaF7cEOcBJFSaVLyA4&e=>
>
> Twitter: @rjw
>
>
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 14:54, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> That makes perfect sense. However, if we go the 'isPartOf' route don't we
> loose the contextual component that set and costume sketches and
> photographs play in the development of the production? I.e., they are not
> parts of the finished work -- the play -- per se but are deeply involved in
> the evolution of a performance of the final product.
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense if they were parts of particular Theatrical
> Events, as just like the performers of said events, costumes and set
> designs can also vary from performance to performance of the same play.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Jacob Jett
> Research Assistant
> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> (217) 244-2164
> jjett2@illinois.edu
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Richard Wallis <
> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>
> Not wishing to overload CreativeWork in the subtypes department, but
> ‘Play’ does seem to be an obvious missing candidate.
>
>
>
> I don’t really think the ’Stage’ qualification is necessary. Most of the
> properties you reference would be inherited from CreativeWork.  The
> exceptions being some of the more specific contributors such as
> StageDesigner and WadrobeKeeper.   These could be handled as per some of
> the roles in the movie industry are - using the Role
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schema.org_Role&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=5tMndZFeOWtA7vej-9XwBZdhVTmH18Mj5t17yfmtpCo&s=5O53HrBuYZ2xJ8k-qXNdxOWXiTOMowrhAlGWPP953a8&e=>
> construct.
>
>
>
> You could then connect the individual performances to the Play using
> TheaterEvent if appropriate using the workPerformed property.
>
>
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 14:27, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> We have a similar use case but also need to account for things like
> costume sketches and photographs (and same for storyboards, set designs,
> etc.). Should we just extend the TheaterEvent with new predicates?
>
>
>
> Most if not all of those things would be CreativeWorks or subtypes
> thereof, in their own right and could be considered ‘isPartOf’ of the play.
>
>
>
> ~Richard
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Tim Turner <tturner@flumc.org> wrote:
>
> There is a TheaterEvent that could be expanded from this list.
>
> https://schema.org/TheaterEvent
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schema.org_TheaterEvent&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=5tMndZFeOWtA7vej-9XwBZdhVTmH18Mj5t17yfmtpCo&s=aa63bKAMCvVjSnfsJFaXpaSAqbwat8spFGjc7owW85E&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* Webmestre Globetrottoirs [mailto:webmaster@globetrottoirs.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 02, 2016 1:05 PM
> *To:* public-schemaorg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Suggestion for new category
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am working on a theater group website.
>
>
>
> When trying to code micro-data, I felt that the following schema is
> missing.
>
>
>
> In the “Creativework” schema, could we add “TheaterPlay”, which would have
> the following properties :
>
>
>
> *Name* – expected type : text – description : the name of the play
>
> *Author* – expected type : text – description : the author of the play
>
> *Director* – expected type : text – description : the person who directed
> the play
>
> *Actor* – expected type : text – description : the actors of the play
>
> *Character* – expected type : text – description : the characters of the
> play
>
> *Composer* – expected type : text – description : the composer of the
> music used in the play
>
> *Genre* – expected type : text – description : the genre of the play (eg
> : musical theatre, gesture theatre, pantomime, …)
>
> *StageDesigner* – expected type : text – description : the person who
> designed the settings
>
> *WardrobeKeeper* – expected type : text – description : the person who
> designed or created the wardrobe.
>
>
>
> It could be also usefull to create schema related to dance or mime, etc…
>
>
>
> Do you think it is possible to do this ?
>
>
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
>
>
> Sincerely.
>
>
>
> Stéphane Reboul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>