RE: Proposal: Collection

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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 15:11:00 UTC