Re: Kill the Record! (Was: BIBFRAME and schema.org)

You can think of the option like this: Anything in Wikipedia can be treated as an owl:Class by changing the URI prefix. For example, this Wikipedia page describes murals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mural

In contrast, you can say something *is* a mural by using this hacked URI in an rdf:type:

http://www.productontology.org/id/Mural

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2013, at 11:42 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:

What are the options provided by productontology?

kc

On 7/5/13 8:26 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
True. This list has always seemed simplistic to me, though. As you've suggested, EBook in particular deserves to be treated as a class so more detailed properties can be included. The other two are just the tip if the iceberg.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2013, at 11:20 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:

Note that schema.org<http://schema.org> has http://schema.org/BookFormatType, which has

Ebook
Hardback
Paperback

kc

On 7/5/13 7:43 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
For paperbacks and similar things, I've started using Product Ontology
to tag the item/manifestation descriptions for example:

@prefix schema: <http://schema.org/> .
@prefix pto: <http://www.productontology.org/id/> .

:book1
    a schema:Book, schema:ProductModel, pto:Paperback ;
    etc.

The coverage isn't perfect, but it has the advantage of being backed up
by Wikipedia.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:35 AM, "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com<mailto:rxs@talis.com>
<mailto:rxs@talis.com>> wrote:

On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:25 AM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> wrote:

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.

+1

I would say there are arguably more defining characteristics than that
(I'm still going to argue that "paperback" isn't actually a part of
the manifestation, simply an inference of the sum of the format of the
items), but this, I would argue, is definitely the least common
denominator and applies well for our entity model in schema.org<http://schema.org>
<http://schema.org>.

-Ross.


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<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet