Considering the Periodical Comics proposal (was Re: journal article for next call?)

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/21/13 1:36 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ah, that was a long way back in my mind today! :) Thanks for bringing it
>> to light in relation to this! I really think we should consider merging
>> these proposals somehow. How different are these "world views", really?
>> Might a scruffy union make things simpler for us all? I really hope so.

A long way back for a good reason: their proposal was posted January 2012!

> Me, too (hope so). However, not all of what they have makes sense to me.
> They have:
>
>      Periodical Series - a sequential grouping of periodical issues - The
> New Yorker, Redbook, The Lancet, Amazing Spider-Man
>     Periodical Issues - individual instances of periodicals - The New Yorker
> Vol. 1, Issue 4
>     Individual comic issues - short-form, saddle-stitched, serially
> published comics (the pamphlet-sized comics seen in comic book stores and
> hobby shops) - Amazing Spider-Man# 600
>
> I'm fine with their "individual comic issue". In fact, when I look at the
> comics in my modest (mostly vintage) collection, they have all kinds of
> different series based on story arcs and sometimes no more than "1 of 2" so
> they definitely have numberings that aren't equivalent to journal numbering.
>
> Here's more from their page:
>
> Periodical Series (extends and inherits all fields from Intangible)
>
>     endYear [number] the last year of publication of the series
>     imprint [string] the publishing division which published the series
>     startYear [number] the first year of publication of the series
>     volume [string] the volume identifier for series
>
> Periodical Issue (extends and inherits all fields from Creative Work)
>
>     issueNumber [number] the issue number within the series
>     numberOfPages [number] the page count for the issue
>     series [periodicalSeries] the series to which the issue belongs
>     subtitle [string] the subtitle for the issue (e.g. "The Music Issue" or
> "The Anniversary Issue")
>     upc [string] the UPC number of the issue
>     numberOfPages [number] the number of pages in the issue
>
> Not very similar... but it's easy to see that having two very different
> proposals called "Periodical" could lead to confusion. And note that they
> were extending Intangible with Series - much like Dan's extention of
> Intangible with Issuance. So there's some sense to that, for some folks. But
> "imprint" in Intangible?! (Also note the repeat of numberOfPages, which
> already exists in /Book, and UPC, which I believe is covered in Product with
> gtin13 - 14 and 8.)

I find it interesting that they modelled volumes at the top level (the
Periodical) and broke out the issues separately. I suppose we could go
crazy and do something like:

* Periodical
** Volume
*** Issue

... but I'm not seeing much value in breaking Volume out separately
from Issue. I really don't want the volume property attached to the
Periodical type, though; we run into the same "can't use a single
identifier to represent the overall Periodical" problem as if we make
both volume and issue properties of Periodical.

>> (For that matter, I think Series, TVSeries and TVSeason also have
>> interesting characteristics that might be shared at some level with the
>> notions we are working with here. At least by using Collection as a
>> common superclass.)

Don't forget TVEpisode, which is something like an Issue + Article
wrapped up in one. (Hmm, what happens with Simpsons Treehouse of
Horror episodes where you have three mini-episodes with different
writer credits in a single episode? HILARITY! And messy structured
data.)

My takeaway from looking at TVSeries, TVSeason, and TVEpisode is that
TVEpisode has both partOfSeason and partOfSeries properties, and
TVSeason has a partOfSeries property, so as we agreed on the call,
being able to link directly to the Periodical from the Article is
desirable.

I'm going to try to address the points we agreed to on the call today
in the proposal, then revisit the Periodical Comics proposal to see
how they fit. I don't think it will be too far off at that point.

Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 02:16:15 UTC