Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

In ONIX we use what are called "composites" - a couple of different codes
together that describe a product. So, for example, an audiobook on CD
would have a product form code of CD-Audio and a product form type of
Audiobook.

If that helps.

ONIX code lists are here, for reference:
http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%20for%20books%20-%20code%20lists/ONIX_Boo
kProduct_CodeLists_Issue_20.html

On 2/13/13 8:49 AM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:

>I am not trying to identify what is content or what is carrier - I am
>trying
>to identify what the type(s) of thing I am describing.
>
>It is a CD AND it is a CreativeWork.  It is not a Creative work of
>sub-type
>CD, or music of sub-type CD.
>
>For some consuming our data CD [in their eyes] may be the primary type
>they
>are interested in.
>
>I would not say it is a narrowing of type I would suggest that it is a
>broadening of access.
>
>A retailer request to identify all their CDs, and possibly facet them by
>those that are also audiobooks, music, software, blank for writing, etc.
>would require much effort if each industry implemented a domain specific
>view such as you propose.
>
>
>~Richard.
>
>On 13/02/2013 13:36, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm still unclear whether 'additionalType' is the place to describe the
>> carrier of the content. I read 'additionalType' as further refinement of
>> the schema.org class. It needs to have a "type of" relationship to the
>> class that it is additional to. "CD" is not a "type of" creative work or
>> "type of" music. We should be look at a property, IMO, not a narrowing
>> of type.
>> 
>> kc
>> 
>> On 2/13/13 7:16 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>> On 13/02/2013 12:12, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Richard Wallis
>>>><richard.wallis@oclc.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In principle I agree with you - it is a kludge of a solution and
>>>>>Microdata
>>>>> could be improved by the ability to support multiple type URIs.
>>>> 
>>>> My reading of the HTML 5 Microdata spec is that multiple types are
>>>>allowed:
>>>> 
>>>>    The itemtype attribute, if specified, must have a value that is an
>>>>    unordered set of unique space-separated tokens that are
>>>>    case-sensitive, each of which is a valid URL that is an absolute
>>>>    URL, and all of which are defined to use the same vocabulary.
>>>>    The attribute's value must have at least one token. [1]
>>> 
>>> It is the 'same vocabulary' bit that is the sticking point that
>>>triggered
>>> the 'addtionalType' work around.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> The original 'Library' extension proposal that accompanied the OCLC
>>>>> WorldCat
>>>>> linked data release last year, highlighted some of the carrier types
>>>>> (catalogued by libraries which contribute records to WorldCat) that
>>>>>were
>>>>> missing from Schema.  I am confident that that proposal will be
>>>>>superseded
>>>>> by recommendations from this group.
>>>> 
>>>> If memory serves it highlighted all of the carrier types, or at least
>>>> a lot more than I would have, which is something I will resist doing
>>>> in schema.org.
>>> 
>>> You and I both.
>>> 
>>>> If OCLC wants to publish a comprehensive list of
>>>> carrier types for use in microdata and RDFa that seems fine.
>>> 
>>> An option open to everybody which I see nobody rushing to undertake.
>>> 
>>> However, with the help of Product Ontology and the infrastructure of
>>> Wikipedia, the community have made a really good start.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> But
>>>> baking all of that into schema.org is not palatable for me, especially
>>>> given the overlap with types that are already present.
>>> 
>>> You and I both.
>>> 
>>>> Is it too
>>>> difficult for us to itemize which types are not present in schema.org
>>>> that we need to have for expected use of bibliographic data?
>>> 
>>> If it is not that difficult, some body, or individual, may see the
>>>benefit
>>> and take on the task, and the associated maintenance responsibility -
>>>one of
>>> the national libraries, LoC, NISO, BIBFRAME, OCLC, Code4Lib?
>>> 
>>> Personally I would question if it would not be better to apply such
>>>effort
>>> to improving Wikipeadia's descriptions of these things and thus
>>>increasing
>>> product ontology's value to the world - not just libraries.
>>> 
>>>> Can we
>>>> take lossless transformation of MARC to schema.org off the table?
>>> 
>>> Its not on my table - I am looking to provide a vocabulary to enable
>>>the
>>> description of anything (with a focus in this group on the
>>>bibliographic
>>> domain).  Plus encourage the publishing/exposure of resource
>>>identifiers
>>> that can add value to such descriptions - what in the broadest sense we
>>> [library folk] describe as authorities.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> //Ed
>>>> 
>>>> [1]
>>>> 
>>>>http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.h
>>>>tml#a
>>>> tt
>>>> r-itemtype
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 13:57:44 UTC