Re: Holdings in schema.org

It doesn't seem to address holdings, Jeff. - kc

On 7/5/13 7:57 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Richard and I mocked up a Dune example that used schema:SomeProducts to
> indicate inventory level. That could be used for comparison too. I see a
> problem with it, but it can be teased out later.
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A1
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>> Could we turn this into a useful discussion and take a look at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings
>>
>> Although there may be other purposes to schema.org <http://schema.org>
>> mark-up, it might be good to address ILS holdings displays before
>> moving on to other potential uses.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 7/5/13 7:25 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>> Note that Schema.org <http://Schema.org> <http://Schema.org> already
>>> has a mechanism to
>>> indicate "Item" in the FRBR sense: schema:IndividualProduct. If you want
>>> to relate those items to an abstraction that is analogous to FRBR
>>> Manifestation, you can use schema:model to link to a schema:ProductModel.
>>>
>>> Aside, I would argue that the defining characteristic of Item is that it
>>> has "location". For physical items that location can be determined by
>>> geolocation (for example). For Web items (aka Web documents), the
>>> location can be determined by its URL.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com
>>> <mailto:rxs@talis.com>
>>> <mailto:rxs@talis.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But this all really how many angels can fit on the head of a pin,
>>>> isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> We've already established that we're not interested in defining any
>>>> strict interpretation of FRBR in schema.org <http://schema.org>
>>>> <http://schema.org>: we're
>>>> just trying to define a way to describe things in HTML that computers
>>>> can parse.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think we need to establish what an item is, no I don't think we
>>>> have to use FRBR as a strict guide.
>>>>
>>>> -Ross.
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:51 AM, James Weinheimer
>>>> <weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/07/2013 13:30, Ross Singer wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I don't understand why offering epub, pdf, and html versions
>>>>>> of the same resource doesn't constitute "items".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you look at an article in arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org>
>>>>>> <http://arxiv.org/>, for
>>>>>> example, where else in WEMI would you put the available file formats?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, format should be tied to the item, although for physical
>>>>>> items, any manifestation's item will generally be the same format
>>>>>> (although I don't see why a scan of a paperback would become a new
>>>>>> endeavor, honestly).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the end, I don't see how digital is any different than print in
>>>>>> this regard.
>>>>>>
>>>>> </snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because manifestations are defined by their format (among other
>>>>> things). Therefore, a movie of, e.g. Moby Dick that is a
>>>>> videocassette is considered to be a different manifestation from that
>>>>> of a DVD. Each one is described separately. So, if you have multiple
>>>>> copies of the same format for the same content those are called
>>>>> copies. But if you have different formats for the same content, those
>>>>> are different manifestations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The examples in arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org> are
>>>>> just like I
>>>>> mentioned in archive.org <http://archive.org> <http://archive.org>
>>>>> and they follow a
>>>>> different sort of structure. You do not see this in a library
>>>>> catalog, where each format will get a different manifestation, so
>>>>> that each format can be described.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result, things work quite differently. Look for e.g. Moby Dick
>>>>> in Worldcat, and you will see all kinds of formats available in the
>>>>> left-hand column.
>>>>> https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=moby+dick
>>>>>
>>>>> When you click on an individual record,
>>>>> http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62208367 you will see where all of the
>>>>> copies of this particular format of this particular expression are
>>>>> located. This is the manifestation. And its purpose is to organize
>>>>> all of the *copies*, as is done here.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the IA, we see something different:
>>>>> http://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale02melvuoft, where this
>>>>> display brings together the different manifestations: pdf, text, etc.
>>>>> There is no corresponding concept in FRBR for what we see in the
>>>>> Internet Archive, or in arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org>
>>>>> <http://arxiv.org>.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not complaining or finding fault, but what I am saying is that
>>>>> the primary reason this sort of thing works for digital materials is
>>>>> because there are no real "duplicates". (There are other serious
>>>>> problems that I won't mention here) In my opinion, introducing the
>>>>> Internet Archive-type structure into a library-type catalog based on
>>>>> physical materials with multitudes of copies would result in a
>>>>> completely incoherent hash.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is why I am saying that FRBR does not translate well to digital
>>>>> materials on the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting rid of the concept of the "record" has been the supposed
>>>>> remedy, but it seems to me that the final result (i.e. what the user
>>>>> will experience) will still be the incoherent mash I mentioned above:
>>>>> where innumerable items and multiple manifestations will be mashed
>>>>> together. Perhaps somebody could come up with a way to make this
>>>>> coherent and useful, but I have never seen anything like it and
>>>>> cannot imagine how it could work.
>>>>> --
>>>>> *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>
>>>>> *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
>>>>> *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
>>>>> *Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
>>>>> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
>>>>> *Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
>>>>> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 15:17:46 UTC