As more in the educational community begin marking up their content with
LRMI / Schema.org we have run into a couple limitations of Schema.org.
[Note: I have cc'd the LRMI community mailing list.]
One oddity is the isPartOf property that lives in the WebPage type
(which is a subtype of CreativeWork).
The isPartOf expected type is CollectionPage, which, has two subtypes
ImageGallery and VideoGallery.
It appears that, from this, the isPartOf property is limited to use in
only galleries of images or videos (but, oddly, don't mix them!).
Would it make sense instead to make isPartOf live on CreativeWork?
Use Case for the change:
In the educational community, there are many times collections of
resources (everything from specific courses, to whole curricula, to
everything between and beyond) and these resources are not all webpages.
They include other media (eg: presentation files, videos, documents,
etc).
Thus, you could imagine a simple use case of a class syllabus that is
itself a collection with many resources linked from it (either living at
the same webspace or not). For pages under the control of the same
entity, modifying the resources to also include the isPartOf ->
Collection information is useful to model the syllabus.
It might then be advantageous to include a "hasPart" in CollectionPage
type.
Summary:
- move isPartOf from WebPage to CreativeWork
- add hasPart to CollectionPage
> As more in the educational community begin marking up their content with
> LRMI / Schema.org we have run into a couple limitations of Schema.org.
> [Note: I have cc'd the LRMI community mailing list.]
> One oddity is the isPartOf property that lives in the WebPage type
> (which is a subtype of CreativeWork).
> The isPartOf expected type is CollectionPage, which, has two subtypes
> ImageGallery and VideoGallery.
> It appears that, from this, the isPartOf property is limited to use in
> only galleries of images or videos (but, oddly, don't mix them!).
> Would it make sense instead to make isPartOf live on CreativeWork?
> Use Case for the change:
> In the educational community, there are many times collections of
> resources (everything from specific courses, to whole curricula, to
> everything between and beyond) and these resources are not all webpages.
> They include other media (eg: presentation files, videos, documents,
> etc).
> Thus, you could imagine a simple use case of a class syllabus that is
> itself a collection with many resources linked from it (either living at
> the same webspace or not). For pages under the control of the same
> entity, modifying the resources to also include the isPartOf ->
> Collection information is useful to model the syllabus.
> It might then be advantageous to include a "hasPart" in CollectionPage
> type.
> Summary:
> - move isPartOf from WebPage to CreativeWork
I'm conflicted; it seems useful but I'm wary of introducing inverses
casually, and for only some of our terms.
I guess we should ask: what's the status of 'rev=' in the HTML work?
Is it just too confusing usability-wise anyway? Older XHTML-based RDFa
syntaxes used to have 'rev=' but I remember the HTML5 community were
not enthusiastic.
Re Charlie's point, there might be a case to raise it even up to
'Thing', although I am a a bit wary of that, as e.g. the expert-filled
Ontolog forum is still debating different senses of 'isPartOf', see
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-09/threads.html ...
and I don't really want to see huge debates here about whether
isPartOf for medical entities (see http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html ) are 'part of' in the same sense as Web pages, sites and books have
parts. Some topics can be argued about for eternity!
-----Original Message-----
From: lrmi@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Brickley
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:57 AM
To: lrmi@googlegroups.com
Cc: public-voc...@w3.org
Subject: Re: Move isPartOf to CreativeWork from WebPage?
On 28 September 2012 20:21, Greg Grossmeier <g...@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> Hi there,
> As more in the educational community begin marking up their content > with LRMI / Schema.org we have run into a couple limitations of Schema.org.
> [Note: I have cc'd the LRMI community mailing list.]
> One oddity is the isPartOf property that lives in the WebPage type > (which is a subtype of CreativeWork).
> The isPartOf expected type is CollectionPage, which, has two subtypes > ImageGallery and VideoGallery.
> It appears that, from this, the isPartOf property is limited to use in > only galleries of images or videos (but, oddly, don't mix them!).
> Would it make sense instead to make isPartOf live on CreativeWork?
> Use Case for the change:
> In the educational community, there are many times collections of > resources (everything from specific courses, to whole curricula, to > everything between and beyond) and these resources are not all webpages.
> They include other media (eg: presentation files, videos, documents, > etc).
> Thus, you could imagine a simple use case of a class syllabus that is > itself a collection with many resources linked from it (either living > at the same webspace or not). For pages under the control of the same > entity, modifying the resources to also include the isPartOf -> > Collection information is useful to model the syllabus.
> It might then be advantageous to include a "hasPart" in CollectionPage > type.
> Summary:
> - move isPartOf from WebPage to CreativeWork
I'm conflicted; it seems useful but I'm wary of introducing inverses casually, and for only some of our terms.
I guess we should ask: what's the status of 'rev=' in the HTML work?
Is it just too confusing usability-wise anyway? Older XHTML-based RDFa syntaxes used to have 'rev=' but I remember the HTML5 community were not enthusiastic.
Re Charlie's point, there might be a case to raise it even up to 'Thing', although I am a a bit wary of that, as e.g. the expert-filled Ontolog forum is still debating different senses of 'isPartOf', see http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-09/threads.html ...
and I don't really want to see huge debates here about whether isPartOf for medical entities (see http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html ) are 'part of' in the same sense as Web pages, sites and books have parts. Some topics can be argued about for eternity!
> However, CollectionPage is a bit restrictive - I was hoping that there was a
> generic CreativeWork/Collection to relate to. I would have thought this
> would also make more sense for the LMRI community.
That was actually in my first draft of the email I sent, but I removed
it because I couldn't fully communicate the reason (no one won the
debate in my head on whether it should be done).
The internal debate is now leaning towards generic Collection, for the
reason of modeling Collections that either don't have a representative
webpage (probably common enough). It is also a great use case of
isPartOf without a hasPart option (where would the hasPart="" live?).
> >> - add hasPart to CollectionPage
> > I'm conflicted; it seems useful but I'm wary of introducing inverses
> > casually, and for only some of our terms.
> I can understand your reticence, but surely one of the prime properties of a
> collection is its part(s).
Indeed. At face value it seems odd to have only one one-way arrow in an
inherently bidirectional relationship.
-----Original Message-----
From: lrmi@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Grossmeier
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:56 PM
To: Richard Wallis
Cc: Dan Brickley; lrmi@googlegroups.com; public-voc...@w3.org
Subject: Re: Move isPartOf to CreativeWork from WebPage?
<quote name="Richard Wallis" date="2012-09-28" time="20:20:46 +0100">
> However, CollectionPage is a bit restrictive - I was hoping that there > was a generic CreativeWork/Collection to relate to. I would have > thought this would also make more sense for the LMRI community.
That was actually in my first draft of the email I sent, but I removed it because I couldn't fully communicate the reason (no one won the debate in my head on whether it should be done).
The internal debate is now leaning towards generic Collection, for the reason of modeling Collections that either don't have a representative webpage (probably common enough). It is also a great use case of isPartOf without a hasPart option (where would the hasPart="" live?).
> >> - add hasPart to CollectionPage
> > I'm conflicted; it seems useful but I'm wary of introducing inverses > > casually, and for only some of our terms.
> I can understand your reticence, but surely one of the prime > properties of a collection is its part(s).
Indeed. At face value it seems odd to have only one one-way arrow in an inherently bidirectional relationship.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Joshua Marks <jma...@curriki.org> wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> "there might be a case to raise it even up to 'Thing'"
I've heard that people have parts that are hands, and that wheels can be
part of cars. Performances come in acts, which are considered parts as well.
The usual sense of parthood is not restricted to collections. However, we
often say that a more specific kind of parthood - membership applies only
to them.
> Indeed it might belong up to thing. But Creative work should do.
> Joshua Marks
> CTO
> Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
> jma...@curriki.org
> www.curriki.org
> I welcome you to become a member of the Curriki community, to follow us on
> Twitter and to say hello on our blog, Facebook and LinkedIn communities.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lrmi@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Dan Brickley
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:57 AM
> To: lrmi@googlegroups.com
> Cc: public-voc...@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Move isPartOf to CreativeWork from WebPage?
> On 28 September 2012 20:21, Greg Grossmeier <g...@creativecommons.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > As more in the educational community begin marking up their content
> > with LRMI / Schema.org we have run into a couple limitations of
> Schema.org.
> > [Note: I have cc'd the LRMI community mailing list.]
> > One oddity is the isPartOf property that lives in the WebPage type
> > (which is a subtype of CreativeWork).
> > The isPartOf expected type is CollectionPage, which, has two subtypes
> > ImageGallery and VideoGallery.
> > It appears that, from this, the isPartOf property is limited to use in
> > only galleries of images or videos (but, oddly, don't mix them!).
> > Would it make sense instead to make isPartOf live on CreativeWork?
> > Use Case for the change:
> > In the educational community, there are many times collections of
> > resources (everything from specific courses, to whole curricula, to
> > everything between and beyond) and these resources are not all webpages.
> > They include other media (eg: presentation files, videos, documents,
> > etc).
> > Thus, you could imagine a simple use case of a class syllabus that is
> > itself a collection with many resources linked from it (either living
> > at the same webspace or not). For pages under the control of the same
> > entity, modifying the resources to also include the isPartOf ->
> > Collection information is useful to model the syllabus.
> > It might then be advantageous to include a "hasPart" in CollectionPage
> > type.
> > Summary:
> > - move isPartOf from WebPage to CreativeWork
> I'm conflicted; it seems useful but I'm wary of introducing inverses
> casually, and for only some of our terms.
> I guess we should ask: what's the status of 'rev=' in the HTML work?
> Is it just too confusing usability-wise anyway? Older XHTML-based RDFa
> syntaxes used to have 'rev=' but I remember the HTML5 community were not
> enthusiastic.
> Re Charlie's point, there might be a case to raise it even up to 'Thing',
> although I am a a bit wary of that, as e.g. the expert-filled Ontolog forum
> is still debating different senses of 'isPartOf', see
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-09/threads.html ...
> and I don't really want to see huge debates here about whether isPartOf
> for medical entities (see http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html > ) are 'part of' in the same sense as Web pages, sites and books have
> parts. Some topics can be argued about for eternity!
