- From: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:21:23 -0400
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOr1obH97N7Q_ZcSoHTGLaW5DiubjSL=jmvbb7KbdMVoBeLN+Q@mail.gmail.com>
I completely agree this is a slippery slope. I am thinking somewhat aloud about whether there is a way to tease out the differences between a citation (which exists in schema.org now) and a looser reference to another work. I concede that these differences may be harder to distinguish and of lesser value to site authors lacking a Library Science degree. Vicki Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Vicki, > > While a relationship like "refersToWork" makes perfect sense, it is the > beginning of a slippery slope - the number of relationships between Works > could be very large (translation of, adaptation of, screenplay based on, > cites, ....) so I think we need to think those through carefully. [1] > > In library data, something like a commentary on Othello has Othello as its > subject. That one seems to fit nicely into the "about" relationship. > However, if a work "cites" another work, that seems to be a different kind > of relationship, albeit one that I think would be very useful. > > kc > [1] There is an entire vocabulary for types of citations: > http://www.essepuntato.it/**lode/http://www.essepuntato.** > it/2013/03/cito-functions<http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://www.essepuntato.it/2013/03/cito-functions> > > > > On 9/20/13 6:48 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote: > >> All four of these properties seem like good additions. Some care will >> need to go into the descriptions so it is clear that my paperback /Moby >> Dick/ is an example of /Moby Dick/ while the /Moby Dick: The Graphic >> Novel/ is based on the original. >> >> >> This may be too far afield, but has there been any thought to a >> '*refersToWork*/' /to capture the relationship between commentaries and >> criticisms to the original work. A commentary on /Othello/ is not an >> example of /Othello/ or based on /Othello/, but it would be nice to note >> >> that relationship. >> >> Vicki >> >> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist |vtardif@google.com >> <mailto:vtardif@google.com> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org >> <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.**org <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>>> wrote: >> >> Triggered by some of the discussion around the recent Audiobook >> proposal >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/** >> 0162.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/0162.html>> >> I >> >> posted on behalf of the SchemaBibEx Group(snippet below), I think >> we need to address the issue of adding some properties to >> CreativeWork allowing the description of relationships between >> CreativeWorks, as a more general issue. >> >> In the Audiobook discussion '*isBasedOn*' has been suggested to >> >> reference the original literary work. >> >> Within the SchemaBibEx group we have been discussing the >> relationship between Works (in the FRBR >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Functional_Requirements_for_** >> Bibliographic_Records<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records>> >> sense >> >> of Work) and examples of that [conceptual] work. As Karen points >> out there is some work on Work (from Freebase, Open Library, >> LibraryThing, WorldCat, etc.) in this area which could benefit from >> being able to describe relationships they are defining. As she also >> points out, apart from these organisations, there is little metadata >> available yet so we may be in a chicken or egg situation as to >> adoption. >> Draft proposals for this being: >> >> * '*workExample*' - Example/instance/realization/**derivation of >> the >> >> concept of this creative work. e.g.. The paperback edition >> * '*exampleOfWork'* - The creative work that this work is an >> >> example/instance of. >> >> >> Karen also suggests a "same work" relationship where you could for >> instance relate the paperback to the hardback - how about >> '*sameWorkAs*'? >> >> >> I would support the adoption of all four of these. >> >> Adopting something like FRBR would be too complex for a a general >> vocabulary like Schema.org <http://Schema.org> - we should be >> >> looking for a [smallish] number that will be useful in relating >> works of many types together. >> >> A KISS approach is desirable, however addressing it piecemeal around >> individual proposals may not be the simplest way when the core >> CreativeWork type is probably the best place to add these >> properties. As they are just as applicable to sculptures and >> paintings as books movies and audiobooks or even webpages. >> >> I suspect we are looking at a few, more focused, sub-properties of a >> generic workRelationship property (domain and range of CreativeWork). >> >> Coming to my point in this rambling email. Can we get a consensus >> on a) there being a need to describe relationships between >> CreativeWorks in this way, and b) a smallish set would do the job, >> at least for now. >> >> If we can, could we then run a suggestion and agree/disagree process >> to try to define that shortish list of candidates. >> ~Richard >> >> [From Proposal: Audiobook] >> >> That said, we (schema BibEx) are contemplating links between >> CreativeWorks for those instances where there are identifiers >> that can be used for that purpose. I think it would be >> preferable that such linking properties be as general as >> possible, and one possibility is to allow any number of >> CreativeWorks to state a "same Work" relationship between them. >> So all of those editions of Moby Dick can state that they >> represent the same work (with links between them) or they can >> all state that they represent the same work described >> inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/**Moby_Dick<http://en.wikipedia.org/Moby_Dick>. >> If there is a "Work" record >> (approximating the FRBR sense of Work) then you can declare any >> edition to the be same work as that record's URL. (Freebase, >> Open Library, LibraryThing, and apparently soon WorldCat, have >> identifiers for Work, although their definitions of Work vary >> among them.) The variety of possible relationships is enormous, >> and so I think that beginning with a KISS approach while we see >> how this pans out would be wisest. >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet >
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 14:21:54 UTC