Re: Leaping aliases or Property aliases in Schema.org

On the issue of “* schema.org <http://schema.org/> doesn’t distinguish
between the abstract creative work and the physical realization of it.*”

This is handled in the bibliographic world using FRBR
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records>
(Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Works), using a hierarchy  of Works,
Expressions, Manifestations and Items.   This was considered in depth in
the Schema Bib Extend Group which introduced the exampleOfWork and
workExample properties into schema:CreativeWork. <http://CreativeWork.>

It is with this simple mechanism supplemented by MTEs it is possible to
represent most any entity instance in that hierarchy.

So “To Kill a Mockingbird”, the creative work independent of its production
in any form would be a schema:CreativeWork with author, etc..  It would
have a workExample relationship with  “To Kill a Mockingbird”, a
schema:Book with publisher, ISBN, numberOfPages, BookFormatType, etc. To
describe the availability of an instance of such a schema:Book it would be
multi-typed to be also a schema:Product enabling the capability to describe
height, weight, image (cover image), and offers to purchase, loan, etc.  An
individual copy of “To Kill a Mockingbird” (the one signed by the author,
or an individual copy on a library shelf) would be an MTE combination with
schema:Book & schema:IndividualProduct which introduces serialNumber
(barcode in library terms).

There are examples of parts of this on the Book page:
http://schema.org/Book#offeredBy-1

Also on that page is an example <http://schema.org/Book#bib-3> of how a
series or multi-part work would be described, using hasPart and isPartOf to
relate the volumes of “Lord of the Rings” together in the overall work.
Note the use of a combination of schema:Book & schema:PublicationVolume.

Referencing you anthology example, each story could be described as an
individual schema:CreativeWork with author etc. and asPartOf the overall
schema:CreativeWork (or subtype thereof) with publisher etc.

~Richard.





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

On 22 October 2016 at 17:07, Greg Hullender <greg_hullender@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> This is part of a larger problem: schema.org doesn’t distinguish between
> the abstract creative work and the physical realization of it. We’d like to
> say that the physical work comprises the cover (which has an artist) and
> the abstract text (which has an author).
>
>
>
> Similarly, the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” has a length, an author, a
> copyright date, etc., but it doesn’t have a cover picture, a publisher, or
> an ISBN. A particular edition of “To Kill a Mockingbird” has a publisher, a
> publication date, a number of pages, and contents. The contents include the
> novel but also likely include an introduction by someone other than Harper
> Lee and might include study materials as well. It would be nice to separate
> the descriptions of the cover, the introduction, and the novel text from
> the description of the physical volume that combines them.
>
>
>
> The same problem occurs when trying to describe an anthology. It’s a book
> with no author but each story in it has an author. Magazines sort of work,
> via publication issue, but that’s a ad hoc solution to a more general
> problem.
>
>
>
> In general, I wish Schema.org made a distinction between a WrittenWork and
> a PublishedWork.
>
>
>
> WrittenWork would have a title, author, length in words (not pages),
> copyright date (not publication date), optionally might have editor,
> translator, translationOf, revisionOf
>
>
>
> PublishedWork would have an editor (but not an author), a length in pages,
> a publication date, a publisher, contents (creative works), and optionally
> might include illustrations, a volume number, etc.
>
>
>
> A WrittenWork might be part of a series. (E.g. “The Fellowship of the
> Ring” is part of “The Lord of the Rings.”) A PublishedWork might be part of
> a set. (E.g. Volume I and Volume II would be part of the same set.)
>
>
>
> It might be nice to have a “publishedAs” field in WrittenWork to allow
> enumeration of places the work was published.
>
>
>
> --Greg
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
> *Sent: *Saturday, October 22, 2016 5:48 AM
> *To: *Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Leaping aliases or Property aliases in Schema.org
>
>
>
> Perhaps you could amend with some owl:equivalentProperty rule. (Assuming
> you mean the "artist" of a CoverArt must be a "cover artist".)
>
> But would not the cover artist property go from the Work (e.g. a book or
> music album) rather than from the CoverArt itself?
>
> On 20 Oct 2016 2:14 am, "Thad Guidry" <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So...There's this...
>> https://bib.schema.org/CoverArt
>> that has an 'artist' property.
>>
>> That 'artist' property in actuality could be a 'cover artist' that could
>> be mapped to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P736
>>
>> But I have no reliable way to do that because we don't have Aliases at a
>> Type/Property level.  Bummer.
>>
>> How do we fix or solve this ?
>>
>>
>>