Re: Proposal: Audiobook

I wrote this over the summer prompted by a different discussion. I 
didn't send it then as it seemed a bit too tangential. But since we've 
set of on that tangent...

I have a comment that isn't about any specific property or extension to 
the schema vocabulary. The comment is about the documentation of in general, Paul's suggestion illustrates the issue nicely

On 13/06/2013 07:59, Paul Watson wrote:
> Rather than being specific to VisualArtwork I'd suggest you amend your 
> proposal so that ColorPalette be a property of Thing to give the 
> opportunity for people to describe the colours of things beyond visual 
> artwork.

My concern is that the higher level classes in schema (Thing, 
CreativeWork etc) are getting a lot of properties from different 
specialist domains. I don't think that is a problem per se, in fact I 
think it is correct. I was involved the Learning Resource Metadata 
Initiative that added its fair share of these properties to 
CreativeWork. Also I don't wish to imply that Paul's suggest is 
problematic.  But it does mean that anyone coming to the 
documentation for Thing or CreativeWork will be presented with a long 
list of properties, many of which while being self-evidently important 
and clearly defined to those from the perspective of some specialist 
domain will be pretty impenetrable to the general user.

My suggestion is that in some way the documentation reflect which 
properties are "core" and which have been added for some domain specific 
purpose. I know it is difficult to say what constitutes the cross domain 
core, but I think it would be relative easy and useful to group together 
those properties of, say, CreativeWork that were added because they are 
specifically relevant to resources being described for use in the 
context of learning, or those properties that are specifically relevant 
to the description of legal aspects of a resource. This might help users 
focus their attention on those properties relevant to them and help them 
understand what the descriptions mean. Alternatively, working vice-versa 
it may be useful to suppress those properties of, say, a Diet or Volcano 
that have been inherited but really aren't particularly applicable to 
the specific class in question.


On 26/09/2013 17:52, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Martin, there are definitely some real issues with the use of 
> hierarchy in (e.g. the famed "volcanoes with fax numbers"). 
> At the same time, we need to avoid going down the "third normal form" 
> road: that is, of trying to create a perfectly defined universe of 
> atoms. The solution is probably closer to what is today 
> than any supposed perfection. Guha said that we should take this on a 
> case-by-case basis. I think it's a *bit* more than that -- there may 
> be a few high use "facets" that will help people fit their data needs 
> into My take would be that we should very carefully 
> undertake some re-organizations that make easier to use, 
> with *use* being the main goal.
> As to the "volcanoes with fax numbers," since all 
> properties are optional, our problem may be solved by documentation 
> and examples. How do we explain to people that the classes carry 
> *possible* properties from which they choose, and all else is to be 
> ignored? Somehow I think that using a less hierarchical display would 
> help. Perhaps someone here with good skills in visualization could 
> develop a " as graph" so that the hierarchy doesn't seem so 
> dominant.
> kc
> On 9/26/13 5:37 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> Karen,
>> Thanks - I think we are in agreement, see my last post. I like the 
>> idea of organizing in a more faceted style. In particular 
>> I think we should really trim down the hierarchy to the bare minimum 
>> (in fact: to true, OntoClean[1] subsumption relations). Currently, I 
>> have the impression that we have subtype relations that are often yet 
>> not always valid.
>> Those also clutter the list of properties.
>> See for instance the impact of the position of
>> on many other types, like
>> Since CreativeWork and all of its properties is so high in the 
>> hierarchy, it adds many not really relevant properties along the 
>> hierarchy.
>> For instance, "Diet" has the properties
>> genre            Genre of the creative work
>> learningResourceType     The predominant type or kind characterizing 
>> the learning resource. For example, 'presentation', 'handout'.
>> educationalUse        The purpose of a work in the context of 
>> education; for example, 'assignment', 'group work'.
>> isFamilyFriendly    Boolean    Indicates whether this content is 
>> family friendly.
>> which are not too relevant.
>> So we could simplify the type hiearchy and instead add a notion of 
>> "popular facets" and then listing facets (e.g. roles) that are useful 
>> to add.
>> Martin
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> Martin,
>>> I realize that you've asked Dan and Guha, but I've been thinking 
>>> about this same question (your a) b)). Without getting overly 
>>> philosophical, I think we have a difference between "essence of the 
>>> thing" - that is, what you need to describe it as "it" - and 
>>> situational or functional description. Audiobook needs /Book and 
>>> /Audiobook to describe it 'qua' audiobook, but situationally could 
>>> also be a product. Since conceivably one could describe an audiobook 
>>> apart from its being a product, then product isn't a necessary 
>>> aspect of audiobook.
>>> This fits in to some faceted classification models where there is a 
>>> primary facet that is the essence of the thing, and then additional 
>>> facets for those "accidental" or "situational" aspects that apply to 
>>> particular instances. In classification these tend to be 
>>> "universals" (place, time, etc.). They can be applied to any "thing" 
>>> in the vocabulary. In the case of I could imagine using 
>>> both /Product and /Accessibility as facets, allowing them to be used 
>>> wherever they are relevant. There has been some discussion of terms 
>>> for measurements, and that, too, is a likely candidate as a facet.
>>> In a more structured vocabulary, facets would be aspects that would 
>>> never stand alone, since they modify other concepts. That isn't the 
>>> case today for /Product, but isn't strict so I don't see 
>>> that as an issue.
>>> kc
>>> On 9/25/13 12:40 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>> good that we have consensus.
>>>> Dan, Guha: I think the issue of whether multi-type entities should 
>>>> be solved
>>>> a) at markup time or
>>>> b) in the vocabulary
>>>> is of generic relevance - do you have an opinion on that?
>>>> I think that for types that are not disjoint but also only loosely 
>>>> related (like an AudioBook used as a Product), it is much cleaner 
>>>> and flexible to recommend using both types at markup time.
>>>> This also decouples the evolution of such needs / use cases from 
>>>> the evolution of the spec - site owners do not have to 
>>>> wait for an update to, and search engines can learn from 
>>>> the appearance of new patterns.
>>>> Martin
>>>> On Sep 24, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>> On 9/24/13 11:40 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>>>> as already posted earlier today:
>>>>>> Simply use the offers property from Product or the itemOffered 
>>>>>> property from offer and make the AudioBook (or other object) of 
>>>>>> type AudioBook AND Product.
>>>>> Yes, thanks, Martin. I saw that on your reply to Dan and that 
>>>>> seems to be exactly what we need.
>>>>> kc
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>> martin hepp
>>>> e-business & web science research group
>>>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>>>> e-mail:
>>>> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>>>> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
>>>> www: (group)
>>>>  (personal)
>>>> skype:   mfhepp
>>>> twitter: mfhepp
>>>> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>>>> =================================================================
>>>> * Project Main Page:
>>> -- 
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> martin hepp
>> e-business & web science research group
>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>> e-mail:
>> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
>> www: (group)
>>  (personal)
>> skype:   mfhepp
>> twitter: mfhepp
>> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>> =================================================================
>> * Project Main Page:


Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
Top in the UK for student experience
Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student Survey 2012)

We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to 
join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. 
Please see for further information and how
to apply.

Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.

Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 08:35:45 UTC