Re: First draft minimalist periodical/article proposal

On 12/8/13, 9:29 PM, Dan Scott wrote:

>>From what I can tell reading the RDF Schema in
> http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html, I don't think schema.org
> properties really need a home. I think you can just add a
> "domainIncludes" assertion for a given property to add it to that
> type, if it belongs there.

The structure there is to help people find the properties they are 
looking for. After all, we asked to have citation moved to CreativeWork 
from somewhere buried down in the medical vocabulary, where it was hard 
to find. Properties that obviously cross different classes, IMO, need a 
general home. Someone marking up book chapters may not think to look in 
Periodical or Article for pagination patterns. (I've talked with DanBri 
about this, but schema desperately needs a good visualization that is 
graph-oriented, not hierarchical.)

(There's also a similar issue [pardon the non-pun] with having "volume" 
1) called "volume" [think geometry] and 2) in Periodical. One of the 
difficulties involving scanned books is that each volume often has its 
own metadata since it is a separate file. Book volumes, treated as 
extent in libraries, becomes individual items in those cases.)

>>
>> "Paging" as the class, perhaps?
>>
>> Paging (class)
>>    pagination
>>    startPage
>>    endPage
>>

I came up with a slightly different version:

Pagination (class)
    pages
    startPage
    endPage

pages can be anything from "356p." to the newspaper type "C1, c17-18" or 
the library "xxi, 257p." or "123"

> But given that you want Periodical to be a subclass of Series,
> shouldn't that line reflect that deeper nesting and actually look like
> the following?
>
> Thing > CreativeWork > Series > Periodical > Article

I have no idea what Series means in relation to Periodical, and hadn't 
included it in my proposal. I see them as bibliographically distinct, 
for reasons that I articulated to Antoine a while back. Although series 
and periodical share the use of volume numbers, I wouldn't consider a 
periodical a type of series, for my bibliographic concept of series. If, 
as you say above, the structure in schema isn't significant, then this 
deeper nesting, IMO, isn't necessary, and yet sends the message that the 
structure IS significant. This, again, is a contradiction within schema 
that encourages structure yet ignores it.

kc



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 14:36:56 UTC