- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:17:48 -0700
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
On 8/1/13 8:22 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote: > Some thoughts... > >> But /Library is a "/LocalBusiness", which is location-oriented and has >> no relation to /Offer, > > > /Library inherits makesOffer from Organization - so there is a connection > between Library and Offer Oh, good. And /makesOffer is defined in a rather broad way: "A pointer to products or services offered by the organization or person." So then it comes down to getting /Offer extended beyond sales, which seems to be a possibility. > > > Proposal [2] seems to mix two concepts, that should possibly approached > separately. > > * Holding statement - which indicates what a library has > * A holding - what a library has [on Offer] for loan or access by other > means. > A holdings "statement" in a library display actually has at least 3 concepts: place (with multiple levels: library/library section/item) "inventory" (what the library has) and offers Making up new properties for library holdings has the advantage of possibly putting these all in one place in schema.org. It has the disadvantage of separating library information from the more common (so far) store and sales information. Re-using existing schema.org properties puts library data in the mainstream, and probably will get it used by search engines sooner. However, existing properties are geared to sales, so the terms are odd if not inappropriate (sku for call number, for example). I understand Dan's reluctance to go back and change terms that have already been defined, but perhaps if our modifications are only to definitions, and are always broader than previous (so that they don't negate any existing data), that will be acceptable. The main question, though, is: what do we do now? I tried asking about changes to definitions but didn't really get an answer. Should I go back and do a more specific proposal, using the holdings example? > Are these not simply mapped to the Organisation properties 'owns' (in the > looses sense), and makesOffer (to make available), respectively? > > As to the shelf location, call number, availability information. Would > this not sit best on IndividualProduct alongside serialNumber (barcode)? > How abut 'storageLocation' and 'locationReference' as properties for > these? The IndividualProduct bing referenced from an Offer as > 'itemOffered'. I'll let Dan answer since he's looked into that aspect in greater detail. kc > > ~Richard. > > On 01/08/2013 15:31, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> Dan Brickley replied on the vocabs list [1] to a question about changing >> existing schema.org elements: >> >> "We don't have very rigid policies. But in general, there's a strong >> bias towards additive changes, since any existing vocabulary that is >> being used is unlikely to completely vanish." >> >> This now leaves us with a bit of a dilemma for holdings. We have >> essentially two holdings proposals. One defines new elements [2], and >> one makes use of existing properties, although those would probably need >> to have their definitions expanded. [3] >> >> In addition, [2] needs a class -- either the properties would be >> sub-classed to, for example, /Library, or there needs to be a new class >> for library holdings. But /Library is a "/LocalBusiness", which is >> location-oriented and has no relation to /Offer, while library holdings >> is a kind of combination of location and offer. If we go with [3] then >> we would be re-using existing properties and classes, and the >> "library-ness" would be less evident in the holdings area (although >> presumably there would be some use of /Library in the markup). >> >> There was some positive feedback about changing /Offer so that it could >> be used for things other than sales. I'm not sure how to go about >> proposing the other changes that [3] would entail. Should we propose >> them en masse? one at a time? >> >> kc >> >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jul/0167.html >> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings >> [3] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Jul/0083.html >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:18:17 UTC