Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

Good point.

When you say "description of the number" - could you give an example?

On 1/16/13 12:03 PM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:

>Is the Bookwire page not a description of the book (that happens to have
>that isbn allocated to it) not a description of the number itself?
>~Richard.
>
>On 16/01/2013 16:56, "Laura Dawson" <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We do, actually - we just make a different URL available publicly for
>>SEO
>> purposes. It's not on Bowker.com - it's on a site called Bookwire.
>> 
>> http://www.bookwire.com/9780985887025 is an example. It's an alias for
>> http://www.bookwire.com/The-Twelve-9780985887025.html.
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/16/13 11:49 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I admit that I always have trouble with the re-working of ontologies to
>>> new uses (like using dcterms:title for a person's name, which is legit
>>> but always rubs me the wrong way). In the SKOS case, I just can't see
>>>an
>>> identifier as a skos:concept. Also, if Bowker *did* provide a URI for
>>> ISBNs (and I think that's being discussed but is not yet realized) then
>>> I see no need for the identifier structure in schema. It is needed for
>>> those instances where there is no URI. (But, Jeff, maybe that's just an
>>> artifact of your example?)
>>> 
>>> kc
>>> 
>>> On 1/15/13 11:07 PM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>>>> I looked at both. They seem to be equivalent with the SKOS being
>>>>cleaner
>>>> and also based on only one new construct: SKOS.
>>>> Personally, I think the name attribute in the SKOS is a misleading
>>>> attribute label for at text key value.
>>>> If I had to choose between name and prefLabel I would prefer the
>>>>latter
>>>> (though that is also misleading too but better than name).
>>>> How does this work for?
>>>> schema:identifier <urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039>;
>>>> In the SKOS part itself, is the do the inSchema and focus need to be
>>>> working URIs with something behind it?
>>>> <http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430>
>>>>      a skos:Concept;
>>>>      schema:name "9780553479430";
>>>>      schema:inScheme <http://bowker.com/concept-scheme/isbn> ;
>>>>      schema:focus <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>.
>>>> Shlomo
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 20:05
>>>> To: Shlomo Sanders; Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>>> Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>>> There was some discussion of Richard's Identifier Proposal during
>>>> today's call, so I wanted to clarify my comments.
>>>> My observation was that the key patterns in Richard's "Identifier
>>>> Proposal" mirror patterns found in SKOS. I added a section to the
>>>> proposal so they can be compared side-by-side:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Proposal
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Alternate_Propo
>>>>se
>>>> d_based_on_SKOS
>>>> If Schema.org adopts the essence of SKOS (which they should if they're
>>>> serious about wanting to externalize lists), then Richard's Proposal
>>>>can
>>>> be modeled as a specialization of that:
>>>> schema:Identifier rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept .
>>>> schema:inStandard rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:inScheme .
>>>> schema:identifies rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:focus .
>>>> I'm skeptical that Schema.org will care about explicitly modeling
>>>> "identifiers for identifiers" like this, but I won't object if the
>>>>group
>>>> wants to try.
>>>> Jeff
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Shlomo Sanders [mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:30 AM
>>>>> To: Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
>>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>>>> Subject: 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
>>>>> <mailto: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]
>>>>> <mailto:[mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36
>>>>>>> *To:*public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto: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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:15:10 UTC