RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

"So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the description of a [standard] identifier."

This seems convoluted and not KISS.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org] 
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 22:12
To: Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; 'Young,Jeff (OR)'; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
Subject: Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

Hi Gordon,

As Karen mentions, Schema.org purposely avoids the strict definition of domains and ranges and (as I would put it) 'hopes' to find the Expected Type as a property but it is also acceptable to find a string representation.

The 'identifier' property I describe in the draft is stretching schema.org documentation style a little, by adding in an order of preference to the Expected Type.

You are correct that a URI could be an identifier but the meaning I was hoping for in this case was that the identifier in question would be a [Standard] Identifier.  Hence the examples of ISSN, ISNI, etc.

However I omitted the word 'standard' so as not to restrict the use to only identifiers produced by standards bodies.

So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the description of a [standard] identifier.

I perhaps need to work a little on my descriptive text - all suggestions welcome!

~Richard.


On 06/01/2013 18:01, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 1/6/13 8:27 AM, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
>> Richard
>> 
>> In the Identifier proposal, the value of the schema.identifier 
>> property includes URIs.
>> 
>> 1. Assuming that schema.org Type is a synonym for RDF Class (or am I 
>> wrong?), what does this mean for the range of the identifier? Is it a 
>> literal, as in the "urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039" example, or a class, as in 
>> the <examplelib.org/identifier/12345> example, which is an individual 
>> member of the class?
> 
> I believe that schema.org is purposely avoiding the strict definition 
> of domains and ranges. As it says in the documentation:
> 
> "The decision to allow multiple domains and ranges was purely pragmatic.
> While the computational properties of systems with a single domain and 
> range are easier to understand, in practice, this forces the creation 
> of a lot of artifical types, which are there purely to act as the 
> domain/range of some properties. "
> 
> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html

> 
>> 
>> 2. Using the example, is it not true to say in ttl:
>> 
>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema.identifier 
>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> .?
>> 
>> If so, <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> is both a schema.Book 
>> and a schema.Identifier Š
> 
> If the two (schema.Book and schema.Identifier) are not disjoint, does 
> it matter?
> 
> kc
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Gordon
>> 
>> *From:*Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
>> *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36
>> *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> *Cc:* Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>> *Subject:* Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have pulled some of our thoughts and discussions together into a 
>> couple of draft vocabulary proposals.  They can be found on the Wiki
>> here: <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>.
>> 
>> These are most definitely Œdraft¹ proposals and are there as a 
>> foundation for us to work on.
>> 
>> I am not precious about any of the Type or Property names I have 
>> used, or any of the descriptive text either.  If you have better 
>> suggestions, dive in and share!
>> 
>> I have included some example RDF ­ I will add some RDFa and possibly 
>> other format examples later.  I am holding off for a few days on 
>> this, as I am in discussion with the W3C hosting people about adding 
>> a syntax highlighting extension added to the Wiki which will make 
>> code examples far more readable.
>> 
>> Regards,
>>       Richard.
>>

Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 06:30:58 UTC