- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:58:49 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Message-ID: <CE1EA613.95C0%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
I have now added the Collection proposal to the WebSchemas Wiki. I have also produced an RDFa Lite Reflection file for it - attached as I was not sure what to do with it. ~Richard On 28/07/2013 19:42, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote: >Update proposal to reflect DCTerms heritage, including some of the wording >in the property descriptions. > >~Richard. > >On 17/07/2013 09:40, "Wes Turner" <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Subject to feedback, >> >>Thanks! >> >>> Perhaps even saying that they're owl:equivalentProperty >> >>Would owl:equivalentProperty be accurate? >> >>Or, would `schema:isPartOf` be mappable to `dcterms:isPartOf`? [1] >> >>In OWL, `dcterms:isPartOf` is an `owl:AnnotationProperty` [3][4]. >> >>How would the `rdfs:range` and `rdfs:domain` restrictions map over? >>[2][5] >> >>Why even restrict the `rdfs:range`? >> >>Do we need to infer that the (super-)type of an `schema:isPartOf` >>object is `schema:CreativeWork`? >> >>[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf >>[2] http://bloody-byte.net/rdf/dc_owl2dl/ >>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#AnnotationProperty-def >>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#owl_AnnotationProperty >>[5] >>http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/16310/using-rdfsrange-in-owlanno >>t >>ationproperty-and-owl-dl-validation/16323 >>-- >>Wes Turner >> >> >>On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Wallis,Richard <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 >>> property. >>> >>> Subject to feedback, and adding a markup example, I will post this on >>>to >>> the WebSchemas Wiki in the next few days. >>> >>> ~Richard. >>> >>> On 07/05/2013 16:09, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <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. >>>> >>>>Jeff >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:11 AM >>>>> To: Dan Brickley >>>>> Cc: 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. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Attachments
- text/html attachment: collection.html
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 10:59:20 UTC