Meet 20130625

From Schema Bib Extend Community Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Call 25th June 2013 - 11:00am EST

Agenda

  • Comments on previous meeting
  • Topics
    • Progress on submitted proposals - Citation & Collection
    • Submission of Work-Instance proposal
    • Thoughts from recent conferences - SemTech & LODLAM
    • What do we work on next?
  • AOB

Actions

  • Collection Will adjust the proposal slightly to emphasise the CreativeWork nature of the collection itself and to raise the partOf attribute up to CreativeWork level. Then use this change to reenergise the debate on the public-vocabs list. - Richard Wallis
  • Work-Instance Personally contact Dan Brickley to discuss the suitability of a non subclassed CreativeWork to describe a conceptual work, plus how our proposal may be shaped better - Richard Wallis
  • Holdings - Prepare some example data on how holdings could be described. Two main use-cases: 1. A library indicating where [eg. on shelf] they have an item. 2. A library asserting that they have copy(ies) of a manifestation. - Jeff Young, Dan Scott.

Call Recording

To view a recording of approx 1 hour call: Click Here
Note: will play using a WebEx browser plugin

Chat transcript from Call

From Dan Scott to Everyone(10:58:50 AM)
Long time no see!
From Richard Wallis to Everyone(10:59:09 AM)
or hear!
From Dan Scott to Everyone(10:59:41 AM)
Heh, not sure you want to hear me - Webex via WindowsXP inside Virtualbox == terrible audio :)
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:00:38 AM)
Warned you!
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:00:57 AM)
Wow. That's kind of like "found object" art, Dan
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:02:02 AM)
Joel, you may want to mute yourself
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:02:15 AM)
we're getting background noise
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:02:39 AM)
I'll call in instead.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:04:17 AM)
no
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:04:32 AM)
I remember I was in San Francisco with Dan Brickley during the last meeting...
From Niklas Lindström to Everyone(11:08:14 AM)
.. there is "isAccessoryOrSparePartFor"
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:16:43 AM)
With planets, or wild animal populations, we get into human-created versus theistic arguments :)
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:16:54 AM)
Dan, exactly
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:18:56 AM)
getting background noise
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:19:08 AM)
More foreground than background :/
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:19:25 AM)
could everyone mute when not speaking? thx
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:20:19 AM)
+1
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:20:39 AM)
At the risk of being hated for reopening this discussion, and not having weighed in before, I have a horrible last-minute proposal for renaming the CreativeWork Relationships properties: "adaptedWork" and "adaptedFrom" - based on Freebase's approach. Advantages being collocation in the property descriptions and reuse of existing vocab.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:21:14 AM)
Dan, they aren't adaptations, they are manifestations
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:21:32 AM)
See War and Peace in Freebase for comparison: https://www.freebase.com/m/014bqn
From Corey Harper to Everyone(11:24:52 AM)
Do we maybe need to convince ourselves this is a good proposal before convincing folks on the public-vocabs list?
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:26:05 AM)
Corey: absolutely
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:26:05 AM)
Corey, I definitely dissent on this one
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:30:53 AM)
"Book" has a "BookEdition" property, but it is currently of type Text and possibly should be "Book" (so that Book :: Book relationships could be expressed)
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:36:28 AM)
+1
From Corey Harper to Everyone(11:39:24 AM)
The definition of CreativeWork isn't quite that specific, I think: "The most generic kind of creative work, including books, movies, photographs, software programs, etc."
From Joel Kalvesmaki to Everyone(11:40:59 AM)
Does *Thing* itself conflate concept and material item?
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:41:03 AM)
Corey, yes, but within that it includes the "instance" properties -- so how do you know whether you have a bf:work or a bf:instance, conceptually?
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:42:02 AM)
Joel, yes, because there is a subclass for intangible
From Corey Harper to Everyone(11:42:43 AM)
Karen: In our case, it would be based on whether it had a "hasInstance" or an "instanceOf" property, though I still question this whole line of reasoning...
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:43:10 AM)
me, too :-)
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:44:17 AM)
which is why i prefer commonEndeavor (with a better name) because it isn't hierarchic
From Joel Kalvesmaki to Everyone(11:45:05 AM)
good proposal; the concept-material distinction is very important
From Corey Harper to Everyone(11:46:01 AM)
Karen: The problem with that side is that it becomes impossible to cluster them all together without either complex reasoning or hundreds (thousands?) of "commonEndeavor" properties on every "Hamlet" out there.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:49:07 AM)
Corey, this is how Google clusters things today -- without instance/work
From Corey Harper to Everyone(11:49:54 AM)
Karen: Which is? The reasoning? I'm not sure it does particularly much of that...
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:50:40 AM)
no, but it identifies "sameness" in terms of "possibly same or related work"
From Niklas Lindström to Everyone(11:51:38 AM)
It's more like statistics (upon normalized data); and it would be good to be able to reify and describe that abstract (not the least very useful for cataloguers to avoid repetition)
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:52:17 AM)
JSON-LD makes a heck of a lot of sense :)
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:52:25 AM)
Nik - yes, if it is reasonable to think that the difference will be available in the data
From Niklas Lindström to Everyone(11:53:02 AM)
Karen: very true
From Corey Harper to Everyone(11:53:04 AM)
Karen: But again, I really suspect you can just infer which you're talking about by looking at the properties that were there...
From Corey Harper to Everyone(11:53:26 AM)
LODLAM++ // a bit uplifiting is an understantment!
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:53:33 AM)
Corey - yes, I agree. And I think that's what happens today when it works well
From Dan Scott to Everyone(11:53:54 AM)
dbs-- # for not making it to LODLAM. But my family would have killed me for adding one more trip to my agenda :/
From Niklas Lindström to Everyone(11:55:49 AM)
Btw., I held a lighting talk on JSON-LD at ELAG. Slides at: http://www.slideshare.net/niklal/something-specificandsimpleniklaslelag2013 (not schema.org-specific though)
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(11:58:49 AM)
http://kcoyle.net/holdings.html
From Dan Scott to Everyone(12:01:36 PM)
I would be really interested in working on expressing holdings at the individual library level too
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(12:01:36 PM)
yes
From Dan Scott to Everyone(12:02:01 PM)
Sounds good! :)
From Corey Harper to Everyone(12:02:18 PM)
Another quick note from LODLAM -- LC Indicated they'd be adding their org codes to id.loc.gov...
From shlomo to Everyone(12:02:33 PM)
Take care. I have to get off.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(12:02:36 PM)
good
From Dan Scott to Everyone(12:02:37 PM)
FWIW, my time should open up significantly as of next week. Thus my willingness to volunteer :)
From Reinhold Heuvelmann to Everyone(12:03:02 PM)
Ok -- see you all -- bye -- Reinhold