- From: Laura Dawson <ljndawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:51:04 -0500
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
LOL! There isn't. And I think this is going to be true for most retail sites with search functions - the search is IP that the retailer's not going to share due to competitive issues. I'm intimately familiar with Audible's and Barnes & Noble's, because I worked pretty strenuously on those; also Muze/Rovi's, which is a white-label book database that is heavily fielded for faceted search. One thing we're going to have to contend with is the reluctance of retailers to display everything they ingest - they may USE it, as Audible does for Endeca's purposes, but they won't SHOW it. On 2/13/13 11:43 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >Laura, what displays on the screen seems pretty minimal -- do you know a >way to see a "fuller record"?* > >kc >* "fuller record" is common cataloging talk, but always makes me think >"brush man" > >On 2/13/13 10:37 AM, Laura Dawson wrote: >> If this perspective helpsŠI developed Audible's taxonomies in 2006 (so >> they could use them with Endeca) and I don't see that they've strayed >>much >> from it. It's very ONIXy, I guess is what I'm saying. >> >> On 2/13/13 10:32 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> >>> owen, great minds and all of that... I've pulled an audio book display >>> off of my local public library to use as an example. Here's the >>>permalink: >>> >>> http://www.berkeley-public.org/record=b1727690~S11 >>> >>> I also looked at audible.com and audiobooks.com (amazon doesn't seem to >>> have audio books). The commercial sites include really minimal info, so >>> they shouldn't be hard to accommodate. >>> >>> I haven't gotten around to editing the actual html from the public >>> library because of course it's all full of CSS (longing for the old >>>days >>> of simple html). But I will attack this. I will also eliminate some of >>> the data (e.g. multiple subjects -> one subject for illustration). So >>> let's do it. >>> >>> kc >>> >>> On 2/13/13 9:16 AM, Owen Stephens wrote: >>>> When I saw Dan Brickley talk about Schema.org <http://Schema.org> a >>>> little while back (watch it at >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-6mhdjE1XE) the thing that struck me >>>>is >>>> how incredibly pragmatic the approach was - it was about 'how do >>>>people >>>> currently represent this on the web' not 'how best to represent >>>>this'. I >>>> keep having to remind myself about this when I think about making >>>> proposals. >>>> >>>> With this in mind I've followed Karen's example and started to look at >>>> how Audiobooks are described on the web - I'm keen that whatever >>>>markup >>>> we propose is going to support these examples. I've started collecting >>>> examples and added them to the wiki. I did start to work out how these >>>> might be supported by some of the proposals with no, or only small, >>>> changes to the existing HTML markup - but haven't had time to complete >>>> this yet. >>>> >>>> It would be good to get some links to existing library specific >>>>displays >>>> of audiobooks as well - don't have any of these yet, so please add to >>>> the wiki if you have some. >>>> >>>> I guess that I'm trying to get into what I think is the schema.org >>>> <http://schema.org> mindset rather than a more general modelling >>>>mindset >>>> and ground proposals in real world existing html markup. I'm keen that >>>> we ground proposals in real world stuff, and think this is a way of >>>> ensuring this is what we do. To my mind this is a strength of >>>>discussing >>>> specifics like Audiobooks over the more abstract content vs carrier >>>> discussion - if we do this for some key types that exemplify content >>>>vs >>>> carrier, we may find a set of consistent approaches that all work in >>>>the >>>> same way, or we may find that we need different approaches in >>>>different >>>> areas - but we shouldn't worry either way. >>>> >>>> I think we'll stand a better chance getting three proposals for >>>> "Audiobook", "Radio Play" and "TV Show recording" to be added >>>>than a >>>> single, more abstract, how to do content vs carrier proposal. >>>> >>>> I'd be interested in knowing if this strikes a chord with others >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> Owen Stephens >>>> Owen Stephens Consulting >>>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com >>>> Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com> >>>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936 >>>> >>>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:03, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET >>>> <mailto:kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard, I don't think that we can declare that each bibliographic >>>>> description describes a single, uncomplex type. To begin with, there >>>>> is that library bugaboo "kit" in which the item in question is >>>>> simultaneously multiple types: >>>>> a kit with multiple parts, each of which is a different thing (a >>>>> puppet, a book, some crayons) >>>>> >>>>> There is also: >>>>> a book with an included CD >>>>> >>>>> There are also many libraries that do not create separate records for >>>>> the hard copy and digital: >>>>> record for a book with an additional link to the online copy >>>>> >>>>> And almost none create separate records for hardcopy and paperbacks. >>>>> >>>>> The upshot is that we will need to handle multiple types in a single >>>>> description. These are also an "AND" relationships, at least in >>>>> relation to the bibliographic data. How would this be done? >>>>> >>>>> [And in another thread, as I say, I do not consider a "CD" to be a >>>>> further typing of a creative work, since I would not say that a "CD" >>>>> is a type of musical work.] >>>>> >>>>> kc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/13/13 6:57 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I¹ve pulled this out of the audiobook thread as I think it is >>>>>> generally >>>>>> applicable to several areas of our discussions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Karen¹s points below highlight several points relevant to this, >>>>>>which >>>>>> I >>>>>> will try to clarify. >>>>>> >>>>>> This emerged from the audiobook thread as audio book is a good >>>>>>example >>>>>> of something in our domain of multiple types a creative work, >>>>>> possibly >>>>>> a book, with a file format (WMA, MP3, etc), and a physical form (CD, >>>>>> cassette tape, etc.). That thread has moved on and we proposing a >>>>>>new >>>>>> sub-type of CreativeWork AudioBook, which I agree with. For the >>>>>> purposes of examples in this email am presuming that proposal has >>>>>>been >>>>>> accepted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Starting with Karen¹s second question: >>>>>> >>>>>> /Second, it still isn't clear, however, if you have multiple >>>>>> associatedMedia fields, e.g. A, B and C, whether that means that >>>>>> you >>>>>> have that CW in three different media, or if you have the CW in >>>>>>a >>>>>> single medium that is defined as A+B+C. >>>>>> / >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> She is referencing multiple instances of a property, however I >>>>>>believe >>>>>> it is the same question for multiple types. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is an AND relationship. >>>>>> >>>>>> The turtle syntax is really helpful for envisioning multiple types: >>>>>> <http://example.com/1234> >>>>>> a schema:Audiobook, pto:Windows_Media_Audio, >>>>>>pto:Compact_Disk; >>>>>> >>>>>> Which can be unpacked as: >>>>>> <http://example.com/1234> >>>>>> a schema:Audiobook; >>>>>> a pto:Windows_Media_Audio; >>>>>> a pto:Compact_Disk; >>>>>> >>>>>> Which can be read as: >>>>>> <http://example.com/1234> is the identifier for a thing which >>>>>>is >>>>>> a Audiobook and, >>>>>> a Windows_Media_Audio, and >>>>>> a Compact_Disk >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to describe something (an audio book) that is available >>>>>>in >>>>>> several formats, you are describing relationships between different >>>>>> things. >>>>>> >>>>>> Against my better judgement and dipping into FRBR language to >>>>>>explain >>>>>> it.... >>>>>> >>>>>> You would have the description of an Expression, of type Audiobook, >>>>>> with >>>>>> links to instances (Manifestations) for each format. Each instance >>>>>> would >>>>>> be a combination of Audiobook and Compact_Disc; Audiobook and DVD; >>>>>> Audiobook and Cassette; etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Check out the examples library >>>>>> A0<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A0> >>>>>> (Expression) and its related instances (Manifestations) >>>>>> A1<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A1> >>>>>>and >>>>>> A3<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A1> >>>>>>to >>>>>> see how this might be encoded. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Moving on to how we encode multiple types for a thing there are a >>>>>> couple >>>>>> of issues to address. >>>>>> >>>>>> Firstly, the differences between RDF (Turtle), RDFa, and Microdata. >>>>>> >>>>>> * RDF is the most obvious as per the above example you just keep >>>>>> adding type statements as required. >>>>>> * RDFa add the type URI to the Œtypeof¹ attribute: >>>>>> >>>>>> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" >>>>>> typeof="Audiobook >>>>>> http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>>>>> >>>>>> * Microdata is a little more difficult as the microdata standard >>>>>>does >>>>>> not natively support multiple types. To overcome this >>>>>>limitation >>>>>> Schema introduced the addtionalType property so that they could >>>>>> encode this concept using microdata, thus: >>>>>> >>>>>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Audiobook"> >>>>>> <link itemprop="additionalType" >>>>>> href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact that the microdata solution uses additionalType as the >>>>>> property >>>>>> name introduces the impression that the other type(s) are somehow >>>>>> subordinate. Maybe it would have been better to have ŒalsoOfType¹ >>>>>>as >>>>>> a >>>>>> property name. >>>>>> >>>>>> The important effect of this approach is that there is no relevance >>>>>>in >>>>>> the order of their declaration. For instance a librarian may >>>>>>describe >>>>>> an audiobook on CD in microdata thus: >>>>>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Audiobook"> >>>>>> >>>>>> <link itemprop="additionalType" >>>>>> href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Whereas a retailer may describe the same thing as: >>>>>> <div itemscope >>>>>> itemtype="http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>>>>> >>>>>> <link itemprop="additionalType" href=" >>>>>> http://schema.org/Audiobook"> >>>>>> >>>>>> These are both valid and equivalent to each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ~Richard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/02/2013 20:09, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >>>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Owen, I take your point: additionalType seems to be sub-typing >>>>>> CreativeWork, not adding information about the product. I >>>>>>vaguely >>>>>> recall >>>>>> having been warned about additionalType -- that it is not often >>>>>> used and >>>>>> seems to be tricky. Here's the definition of "aT": >>>>>> >>>>>> "An additional type for the item, typically used for adding more >>>>>> specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax. >>>>>> This is a >>>>>> relationship between something and a class that the thing is in. >>>>>> In RDFa >>>>>> syntax, it is better to use the native RDFa syntax - the >>>>>>'typeof' >>>>>> attribute - for multiple types. Schema.org <http://Schema.org> >>>>>> tools may have only weaker >>>>>> understanding of extra types, in particular those defined >>>>>> externally." >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard posted this in an email: [1] >>>>>> " >>>>>> Sticking with the Product Ontology approach for a moment an >>>>>> audiobook >>>>>> in WMA on a cd would just be a combination of multiple types >>>>>>thus: >>>>>> > http://schema.org/Book >>>>>> > additionalType: http://www.productontology.org/id/Audiobook >>>>>> > additionalType: http://www.productontology.org/id/ >>>>>> Windows_Media_Audio >>>>>> > additionalType: http://www.productontology.org/id/ >>>>>>Compact_Disc >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> First, I think that "/associatedMedia" in CreativeWork looks to >>>>>>be >>>>>> a >>>>>> better fit for this. It is defined as: "The media objects that >>>>>> encode >>>>>> this creative work. This property is a synonym for encodings." >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, it still isn't clear, however, if you have multiple >>>>>> associatedMedia fields, e.g. A, B and C, whether that means that >>>>>> you >>>>>> have that CW in three different media, or if you have the CW in >>>>>>a >>>>>> single >>>>>> medium that is defined as A+B+C. I believe that Richard's >>>>>>example >>>>>> above >>>>>> was the latter. You seem to be concerned about encoding the >>>>>>former. >>>>>> Surely we need to be able to distinguish between them. I believe >>>>>> that >>>>>> means moving toward item or offer-level description for the >>>>>> different >>>>>> encodings. I can't think of any other way to make it clear. >>>>>> >>>>>> kc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Karen Coyle >>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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 >>> >> >> >> > >-- >Karen Coyle >kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >ph: 1-510-540-7596 >m: 1-510-435-8234 >skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 16:51:50 UTC