Re: Missing Schema.Org properties

That is actually not true, although we don't see much of it in execution.
I'm at an International DOI Foundation meeting now, and we're discussing
multiple resolution ­ where a single DOI resolves to two or more URLs.

At Bowker we're in the process of coding a demonstration of this feature of
DOIs.

From:  Ross Singer <rxs@talis.com>
Date:  Tuesday, December 4, 2012 2:30 PM
To:  Laura Dawson <ljndawson@gmail.com>
Cc:  Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>,
"public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Missing Schema.Org properties

On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:26 PM, LAURA DAWSON <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> DOIs can resolve to multiple URLs, which can get tricky. (Right now ISNIs
> don't resolve but we are working on that.)
> 
Again, though, are any of these problems?  URIs don't have to be HTTP uris.
Also dois themselves /can't/ resolve to multiple URLs.  If it's an HTTP URI
(e.g. http://dx.doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxxx) it can only resolve to /one/ place
(at dx.doi.org <http://dx.doi.org> ), which redirect you to, at most, one
other place.

-Ross.

> On Dec 4, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Call me naive, but I contend that most bibliographic identifiers are
>> expressable as URIs (URNs, info-uris, URLs) and that as such they can use
>> microdata's itemid [1]. Is there really a problem here?
>> 
>> //Ed
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#gl
>> obal-identifiers-for-items
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/4/12 5:01 AM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>>>> For what it is worth, I prefer:
>>>> 
>>>>      ISBN-10<span property=" identifier" typeof="ISBN">0316769487</span>
>>> 
>>> I don't think this is correct -- unless you have a property that is "ISBN".
>>> The "typeof" takes a property, not a value.
>>> 
>>> Any values have to be outside of the <> unless you use a meta tag. see:
>>>   http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#advanced_missing
>>> <http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#advanced_missing>
>>> 
>>> Maybe that's how we'll have to go - with meta.
>>> 
>>> kc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Or
>>>>      ISBN-10: <span itemprop="isbn">0316769487</span>
>>>> 
>>>> These are short and clean.
>>>> The itemprop="isbn" is not generic since the valid values for itemprop is
>>>> enumerated?
>>>> Is that the same issue for typeof?
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 14:58
>>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Missing Schema.Org <http://schema.org/>  properties
>>>> 
>>>> Do we need to consider how this might be displayed, since schema.org
>>>> <http://schema.org/>  generally wraps around a display? These two options
>>>> would result in different displays:
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/4/12 3:33 AM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>>>>> How is this as a schema.org <http://schema.org/>  "friendly" version of
>>>>> the ONIX structure:
>>>>> 
>>>>> <div typeof="identifier">
>>>>>             <span property=" identifierValue ">0316769487</span>
>>>>>             <span property=" identifierType ">ISBN</span> </div>
>>>> 
>>>> 0316769487 ISBN
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Seems too long to me, perhaps:    <span property=" identifier"
>>>>> typeof="ISBN">0316769487</span>
>>>> 
>>>> 0316769487
>>>> 
>>>> The schema.org <http://schema.org/>  documentation shows a similar example
>>>> to this latter approach using price:
>>>> 
>>>>     Price: <span itemprop="price">$6.99</span>
>>>>     <meta itemprop="priceCurrency" content="USD" />
>>>> 
>>>> This gets the "$6.99" display for the human reader, plus the currency type
>>>> for processing.
>>>> 
>>>> The current use of ISBN is illustrated as:
>>>> 
>>>>      ISBN-10: <span itemprop="isbn">0316769487</span>
>>>> 
>>>> If we go with id type and value, then display is limited by the defined
>>>> types, unless we leave type very loose. To get the same display as the ISBN
>>>> immediately above, we'd need:
>>>> 
>>>> <div itemprop="identifier" itemscope="http://schema.org/Identifier
>>>> <http://schema.org/Identifier> ">
>>>>     <span itemprop="idType">ISBN-10: </span>
>>>>     <span itemprop="idValue">0316769487</span>
>>>> </div>
>>>> 
>>>> Does identifier type do what we want if it's not a controlled value? Or
>>>> would we need a <meta> with a controlled value?
>>>> 
>>>> kc
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 20:28
>>>>> To: Graham Bell
>>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Missing Schema.Org <http://schema.org/>  properties
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do, however, see a significant difference between schema.org
>>>>> <http://schema.org/>  and the XML structure of ONIX (or any other
>>>>> XML-based metadata): schema.org <http://schema.org/>  allows the data to
>>>>> be flattened to a single horizon of data. This is for the sake of
>>>>> simplicity, if I understand correctly. There seems to be a philosophy in
>>>>> schema.org <http://schema.org/>  that avoids a strict division of
>>>>> descriptions into "right" and "wrong." XML, instead, is really an
>>>>> enforcement mechanism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm leery of adding much structure to schema.org <http://schema.org/> . Or
>>>>> at least, of either requiring it or relying on it. That makes the
>>>>> identifier "problem"
>>>>> particularly difficult. It is for this reason that I asked, in response to
>>>>> Shlomo's post, whether one can make use of the self-identifying nature of
>>>>> URIs. That doesn't help us with non-URI identifiers, but it seems that we
>>>>> are moving increasingly in the direction of "fully formed"
>>>>> identifiers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> kc
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/3/12 8:41 AM, Graham Bell wrote:
>>>>>> Worth saying at this point that this is EXACTLY how ONIX is structured:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       <entityIdentifier>
>>>>>>            <entityIDType>
>>>>>>            <IDTypeName>
>>>>>>            <IDValue>
>>>>>>       </entityIdentifier>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> where 'entity' might be 'product', 'work', 'name', or whatever. There
>>>>>> is a controlled vocabulary for common IDTypes, and if you have some
>>>>>> proprietary identifier not in the list, you must include a 'likely to
>>>>>> be unique' name for it in <IDTypeName> instead.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A point of history -- ONIX started (in 1999) with a property per
>>>>>> identifier type: there were tags called <ISBN> and <UPC>, but as
>>>>>> pointed out below, that isn't really practical, so the above XML
>>>>>> structure is used extensively now. It's easy to add to the controlled
>>>>>> vocabulary when a new identifier comes along, without having to
>>>>>> change the schema. In UML, it looks like the attached, and I leave
>>>>>> the RDF as an exercise for the reader...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Graham Bell
>>>>>> EDItEUR
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7503 6418 <tel:%2B44%2020%207503%206418>
>>>>>> Mob: +44 7887 754958 <tel:%2B44%207887%20754958>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in
>>>>>> England no 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road,
>>>>>> London N7 9DP, UK. Website: http://www.editeur.org
>>>>>> <http://www.editeur.org/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 3 Dec 2012, at 16:18, Laura Dawson wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That might work, actually.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12/3/12 7:19 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Shlomo,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Couple of points.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *Identifiers: *This is a particular concern of mine.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Me, too!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The approach of
>>>>>>> having a named property for each possible identifier that a
>>>>>>> CreativeWork or a Person could have, just does not scale.  However
>>>>>>> to handle this you will always be disenfranchising some identifier
>>>>>>> backing group.  Isbn seems to of got in because it is know by everyone,
>>>>>>> oclcnum is obvious
>>>>>>> from where I sit (but that does not make it right).   I think we (in all
>>>>>>> of Schema, not just the bib domain) need an identifier Type with
>>>>>>> properties of 'identifierValue' and 'identifierType' - which could
>>>>>>> handle either an enumerated list or at least well known identifier
>>>>>>> names.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I believe that this means that "Identifier" becomes a "schema" in
>>>>>>> schema.org <http://schema.org/>  <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/>
>>>>>>> >.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/>
>>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/>
>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/>
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596>
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>> 
>>