Re: First draft minimalist periodical/article proposal

On 12/9/13, 2:18 PM, Ross Singer wrote:

>
> I still would like to get a journal person's take.  Tony Hammond?  Alf
> Eaton?  Isn't he on this list? Others?  I don't know many people at the
> publishers.

We could hunt down some serials catalogers.

I must admit I'm having a hard time thinking of an article as having a 
volume and issue, or an issue having a volume, since those are, to my 
thinking, so clearly properties of the journal.

kc


>
> -Ross.
>
>
>     kc
>
>
>
>         -Ross.
>
>
>         On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>         <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>         <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>              On 12/9/13, 9:45 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>
>                      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.)
>
>
>                  I think the mechanism is to simply add a domainIncludes
>         declaration
>                  for each property of interest pointing at the type (for
>         example,
>                  BookChapter, if it gets defined)..
>
>
>              Which one could have done with MedicalArticle in order to
>         make use
>              of citation. So either one takes the view that you only need
>              domainIncludes, or that the structure matters, not
>         sometimes one
>              way, some times the other.
>
>              Honestly, I think that schema.org <http://schema.org>
>         <http://schema.org> itself hasn't
>
>              made this decision -- which is why we end up looking at it
>         in both
>              ways. Since "the mechanism is simply to add a domainIncludes
>              declaration..." as a technical solution, I like to look at
>         what will
>              help people using schema.org <http://schema.org>
>         <http://schema.org> as a strong
>
>              motivator for decisions. It's still a crap shoot, I admit.
>
>
>
>                  I'll admit to being surprised at the idea of adding a
>         Pagination
>                  class; that seems like a much less useful thing to
>         potentially
>                  link to
>                  than an individual issue. And there is no complexity in
>         the pages /
>                  startPage / endPage properties that binds their
>         relationship
>                  (vs. say
>                  a Contributor class that would let one encode or
>         encapsulate the
>                  nature of the contribution, rather than requiring every
>         possible
>                  type
>                  of contributor to become its own property).
>
>
>              I don't know what you mean by "every possible type of
>         contributor to
>              become its own property" but the reason that I have for moving
>              pagination out of periodical is that it is also useful for
>         book/book
>              chapter, unless you expect people to domainIncludes Book to
>              Periodical. That, I think, would not occur to many people.
>
>
>
>                  FWIW, I originally wanted to name the "pagination" property
>                  "pages" or
>                  "pageNumbers", but balked because schema.org
>         <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
>
>                  has deprecated most of
>                  the plural attribute names in favour of the singular.
>         That said,
>                  in my
>                  research last week checking the MLA and APA style
>         manuals, "page
>                  numbers" was the most commonly used term between the two,
>                  followed by
>                  "pagination". So I would suggest either "pageNumbers" or
>                  "pagination".
>                  This would avoid any possible terminology conflict with
>         "page(s)" as
>                  in the assistants to members of parliament, or (heh)
>                  people-typically-teenagers who shelve books at libraries.
>
>
>              Both pageNumbers and pagination sound fine.
>
>
>
>
>                          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.
>
>
>         http://www.w3.org/community/____schemabibex/wiki/Periodical_____Article_minimal
>         <http://www.w3.org/community/__schemabibex/wiki/Periodical___Article_minimal>
>
>
>         <http://www.w3.org/community/__schemabibex/wiki/Periodical___Article_minimal
>         <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Periodical_Article_minimal>>
>                  is the right page for me to be looking at, right? If
>         so, there's a
>                  section at the top that says:
>
>                  """
>                  Subclass Periodical to Series
>
>                  Thing > CreativeWork > Series
>
>                  Periodical will also need to be sub-classed to Series
>         to make
>                  use of...
>                  """
>
>                  This is why I thought you want Periodical to be a
>         sublass of Series.
>
>
>              Ah, yes. I'd forgotten that the start and end dates were in
>         Series.
>              I also suggest further down in the Intangible area that perhaps
>              those should be moved to Intangible since that was one of those
>              opportunistic subclassings that I find so illogical. So it
>         again
>              brings up the question of whether there is any logic to
>         schema.org <http://schema.org>
>              <http://schema.org> or if one simply wants to subclass
>         promiscuously
>
>              to get whatever properties one needs. I can go with either some
>              semblance of logical arrangement or treating schema.org
>         <http://schema.org>
>              <http://schema.org> as a flat vocabulary (and doing a lot of
>
>              opportunistic subclassing) but being on the pendulum
>         between them
>              gives me whiplash. I think this is a problem that many are
>         having
>              with schema, and unfortunately I don't see it getting
>         cleared up any
>              time soon. We should probably just decide what our goals
>         are and not
>              worry too much about the whole. (I think this is what the
>         medical
>              folks did.)
>
>              kc
>
>
>
>                      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.
>
>
>                  Okay.
>
>                      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.
>
>
>                  I don't think I said, and did not mean to imply in any
>         way, that the
>                  structure in schema is not significant. I was just
>         trying to
>                  point out
>                  the domainIncludes approach to go along with the
>         subclass option.
>
>                  Thanks,
>                  Dan
>
>
>              --
>              Karen Coyle
>         kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>         <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
>         http://kcoyle.net
>              m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> <tel:1-510-435-8234
>         <tel:1-510-435-8234>>
>              skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>

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

Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 23:47:55 UTC