Fwd: Re: CreativeWork relationships
Phil Barker
Phil
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Re: CreativeWork relationships |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:55:28 +0200 |
| From: | Niklas Lindstr�m <linds...@gmail.com> |
| To: | <phil....@hw.ac.uk> |
| CC: | public...@w3.org <public...@w3.org> |
Hello. There is already an isBasedOnUrl property of creative works. It came in to schema from the LRMI work and is used to point to "a resource that was used in the creation of this resource". The use case in that context was indicating the sort of derivation/modification of a creative work (in the copyright sense of the words) that is allowed by Creative Commons licences without the "No Derivatives" clause.
The suggestions below look sound. My one concern is that there might be a collision between it and isBasedOnUrl. I assume that the isBasedOn property will indicate a relationship between CreativeWorks(*), so there is scope for confusion between the URL provided for isBasedOnUrl and a URL provided for the Url property of the CreativeWork at the end of an isBasedOn property (I hope that is easier to understand than to state in words).� Would the proposed isBasedOn relationship be entirely distinct from the relationship indicated by isBasedOnUrl, would it be a sub/superset? Most importantly how is any distinction explained?
Phil
*i.e. I don't suppose we are going into possibilities of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_(character) isBasedOn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_of_Scotland
On 20/09/2013 12:52, Wallis,Richard wrote:
Triggered by some of the discussion around the recent�Audiobook proposal�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�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 - 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. 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.
-- <http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>
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 www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply.
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
Phil Barker
Joshua Marks
In Curriki, a resource copied and modified from another (e.g. forked) is tagged as isBasedOn (But this is not yet exposed as a LRMI tag as it is not directly viewable in the UI. We might change this.)
Joshua Marks
CTO
Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
US 831-685-3511
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.
From: lr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Phil Barker
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:43 AM
To: lr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Fwd: Re: CreativeWork relationships
Is there much use of the LRMI isBasedOnUrl property? There is a proposal to add an isBasedOn property to schema.org to indicate a CreativeWork - CreativeWork relationship which may (or may not) be slightly different to the meaning we intended isBasedOnUrl to convey. (There is more discussion on the public-vocabs list)
Phil
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: | Re: CreativeWork relationships |
Date: | Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:55:28 +0200 |
From: | Niklas Lindström <linds...@gmail.com> |
Hi Phil,
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Phil Barker <phil....@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
Hello. There is already an isBasedOnUrl property of creative works. It came in to schema from the LRMI work and is used to point to "a resource that was used in the creation of this resource". The use case in that context was indicating the sort of derivation/modification of a creative work (in the copyright sense of the words) that is allowed by Creative Commons licences without the "No Derivatives" clause.
The suggestions below look sound. My one concern is that there might be a collision between it and isBasedOnUrl. I assume that the isBasedOn property will indicate a relationship between CreativeWorks(*), so there is scope for confusion between the URL provided for isBasedOnUrl and a URL provided for the Url property of the CreativeWork at the end of an isBasedOn property (I hope that is easier to understand than to state in words). Would the proposed isBasedOn relationship be entirely distinct from the relationship indicated by isBasedOnUrl, would it be a sub/superset? Most importantly how is any distinction explained?
Well, 'isBasedOnUrl' has a textual value as range – the URL itself. You might use it as an indirect reference to a thing which has this value for its 'url' property (although this isn't really defined). The URL, when used as an *identifier*, then names some article whose subject matter is the thing, somehow (possibly using 'about'). Thus, the value could be "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings", with the *intent* of referencing that *work* – not the wikipedia article about it. That pattern may be fine for near-matches using URLs as foreign keys, but it isn't enough for the use cases here intended. (Which are just like most other usages of schema.org – e.g. relating Persons to Things, Products with Offers, and so on).
So by having a range of 'URL', 'isBasedOnUrl' excludes direct references. It cannot be used following Linked Data practises of identifying things with URLs, neither can it be used to link unnamed entities directly described (i.e. following the general logical foundation of the resource description framework – or the tree-based informal microdata variant). Thus it cannot as it stands link a CreativeWork to another.
An option would of course be to just extend the range of 'isBasedOnUrl', but the name of that would then be rather odd. Schema.org does mainly use a pattern of direct relations between things, using "natural" names for the properties. (You may use URLs as identifiers for those things, and/or link unnamed things described in the same page.)
That's why I recommended to define 'isBasedOn' (as a companion to 'isBasedOnUrl' if you will), with both a domain and range of CreativeWork.
Semantically, I suppose their relation is something like (pardon my OWL):
:isBasedOnUrl owl:propertyChainAxiom (:isBasedOn :url) .
Cheers,
Niklas
Phil
*i.e. I don't suppose we are going into possibilities of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_(character) isBasedOn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_of_Scotland
On 20/09/2013 12:52, Wallis,Richard wrote:
Triggered by some of the discussion around the recent Audiobook proposal 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 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 - 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. 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.
--<http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>
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 www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply.
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Resource Metadata Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lrmi+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.