- From: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:17:10 +0000
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
- Message-Id: <D61B191A-D2DD-46E7-8D4F-D59440AA8D9E@ostephens.com>
I think this is exactly what schema.org aims at - don't worry about the under-the-hood data model, stick to what is expressed in the html (and thanks for the public library eg - I should have some time to look at this tomorrow) Owen Owen Stephens Owen Stephens Consulting Web: http://www.ostephens.com Email: owen@ostephens.com Telephone: 0121 288 6936 On 13 Feb 2013, at 17:03, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > So for our schema.org work, do we just concentrate on what shows on the html displays? I guess we have no choice, eh? > > kc > > On 2/13/13 10:51 AM, Laura Dawson wrote: >> 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 >> >> >> >> > > -- > 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 19:19:52 UTC