Move isPartOf to CreativeWork from WebPage?

[Greg Grossmeier]

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
- add hasPart to CollectionPage



Thoughts?

Greg

--
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier

[Dan Brickley]

I'd support this, and it will bring us into line with the same term
used in the Dublin Core community,
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf

> - 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 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!

cheers,

Dan

[Joshua Marks]

Dan wrote:

"there might be a case to raise it even up to 'Thing'"

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.

[Greg Grossmeier]

<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.

[Charlie Jiang]

I echo that isPartOf, hasPart and Collection belong to same group of concept, which is for constructing relationships or graphs.

-----Original Message-----
From: lr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Grossmeier
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:56 PM
To: Richard Wallis
Cc: Dan Brickley; lr...@googlegroups.com; public...@w3.org
Subject: Re: Move isPartOf to CreativeWork from WebPage?

[Alan Ruttenberg]

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.

-Alan