W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Proposal: Collection

From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:25:34 +0000
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE0AF7CF.858A%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Good idea referencing the DC Terms equivalents of these property names, indicating previous and parallel origins.

Not so sure about explicitly saying that they're owl:equivalentProperty – would this not have the effect to constrain usage in Schema by definitions in DC. In this specific case I don't see an issue, but a principle that might cause problems later.


From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com<mailto:lindstream@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 12:41
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org<mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>
Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org<mailto:danbri@danbri.org>>, "public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Collection

Could we also add a section, similar to the Datasets proposal [1], stating that these properties are related to the Dublin Core properties [2], [3] of the same name?

(Perhaps even saying that they're owl:equivalentProperty. Ideally, the final proposal in HTML+RDFa (the proposals format prescribed by [4]) can contain this as an explicit triple, for precise and machine-actionable documentation. This would also eliminate various ongoing speculations on what origins or equivalencies various things in schema.org<http://schema.org> may or may not have, which is detrimental to data integration.)


[1]: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Datasets#Related_vocabularies
[2]: http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasPart
[3]: http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf
[4]: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals#Proposals_for_Schema.org

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
Taking on the brief discussion, I have adjusted the text of this proposal
a little.

Although, to broaden its applicability, the isPartOf property may best be
added to Thing, the proposal currently proposes it as a CreativeWork

Subject to feedback, and adding a markup example, I will post this on to
the WebSchemas Wiki in the next few days.


On 07/05/2013 16:09, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> wrote:

>Here are some thoughts about Dan's question of the difference between
>Collection and Class. In a sense, this is splitting an arbitrary hair
>because both are identifiable sets of individuals. I think there are a
>few ways to decide, but ultimately it's probably a matter of perspective
>and intuition.
>Perhaps one way to decide the art is to ask whether the individuals have
>properties that are peculiar to them being in the my:Foo set or not. If
>there are such properties, then my:Foo should be a Class so it can act as
>a domain/range on those properties. Another criteria could be whether
>my:Foo makes sense as a subclass/superclass of another Class in the model.
>Whether my:Foo can be a schema:Class AND a schema:Collection boils down
>to DL or not to DL. I like to be careful about those things, but I can
>cope with people who aren't.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:11 AM
>> To: Dan Brickley
>> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Proposal: Collection
>> >
>> >Is this specifically library-like or cultural heritage notion of a
>> >collection? Or is it a general purpose data structure for listing
>> >bundles of things? My suspicion is that it's the latter, but it could
>> >easily be mistaken for a very general purpose mechanism.
>> You suspect correctly.  The need/approach has come the library and
>> associated worlds, but it is clearly applicable in a wider context.
>> A library has a collection of books, a museum has a collection of
>> artefacts, etc.   However a farmer could have a collection of animals
>> By making Collection a subclass of CreativeWork it does imply that the
>> creation of a collection would be a conscious creative act by a
>> creating person/organization.
>> However the parts of a collection would not always be creative works
>> themselves (fossils in a museum, toys and books in a children's
>> library,
>> etc.) hense the need for isPart to be added to Thing.
>> >
>> >If there's a bibliographic / cultural heritage problem we can solve
>> >here, while avoiding getting into heavier 'theory of parts' territory
>> >(e.g. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/Mereotopology.pdf)
>> >I'd be happy...
>> I have equal aversion to diving down such deep dark rabbit holes!
>> Would we not avoid that by indicating that a Thing can be part of many
>> collections or none, a Collection can contain zero or any parts that
>> may or may not be in other Collections - or am I being naive? ;-)
>> ~Richard.
>> >
>> >Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >> Sub-classed to: Thing > CreativeWork > Collection Properties likely
>> >> to be used from CreativeWork
>> >> * about (e.g. for collection themes)
>> >> * contentLocation (e.g. for museum/archive collections)
>> >> * creator (e.g. for collection curators)
>> >>
>> >> New property for CreativeWork (or perhaps for Thing)  As a matter of
>> >>principle, anything imaginable can be thought of has having  parts.
>> >>Although we are primarily interested in this property for sake of
>> >>modelling collections and multi-part works, a broader treatment as a
>> >>property of schema:Thing would be appreciated.
>> >> * Property: hasPart
>> >> * Expected Type: Thing
>> >> * Description: A thing that is part of this CreativeWork. For
>> example
>> >>things in a collection or parts in a multi-part work
>> >>
>> >> New property for Thing
>> >> This is the same schema:isPartOf property as currently found in the
>> >>http://schema.org/WebPage class with schema:CollectionPage as the
>> range.
>> >> We would like it promoted for broader use, particularly in this
>> case,
>> >>for  use with a Collection Type.
>> >> * Property: isPartOf
>> >> * Expected Type: CreativeWork or Thing(dependant on choice for
>> >>hasPart)
>> >> * Description: Inverse of hasPart
>> >>
>> >> More information and some examples can be found on the
>> >> SchemaBibExtend Wiki
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection>.
>> >>
>> >> ~Richard.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 12:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:00 UTC