Re: Holdings-as-Offer: wrap-up

For a hidden value like that, I think one could/should use a META tag for
the "seller" property in the Offer to point at Tiny Town Library.
On Oct 18, 2013 2:12 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Dan, the example I had in mind was a little different. Let's say that the
> catalog is for TinyTown Public Library. The display of the holdings is:
>
> Reference    876.54   Library use only
>
> Nothing in that indicates the actual library. Another case is for
> electronic materials. Library systems handle this differently, but there
> isn't a location in many cases:
>
> Online    Click here
>
> I'm thinking that there are cases in which the library itself is not
> included in the holdings statement (or anywhere else on the page) because
> it is inherent in the context of the system being searched. So my question
> is whether there is value in including information about the library itself
> as a super-location to the holdings location, or is the assumption that
> this connection will be made through, e.g., the URL of the web page that
> has the markup?
>
> I think my question leads to a broader one about the use case for library
> data in schema.org. When I look at product examples it is clear to me
> that the target is the URL of the product page. Is this also the assumption
> for library data in schema.org -- that we are expecting a search engine
> retrieval of a page for a library resource, and that page is the target of
> the search? If so, then that URL is all that is needed to link to the
> library and its resource. If, however, we anticipate other uses to be made
> of the schema mark-up, such as organizing retrieved items by geographical
> location, then we need to get that information into each web page. This may
> be unrelated to the markup of holdings, but it was this proposal that
> brought it to mind.
>
> kc
>
> On 10/18/13 9:37 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>> Hi Karen:
>>
>> In the existing examples, I've pointed "seller" at a Text value as
>> that was the most expedient method for the purposes of markup, but as
>> the range of "seller" includes "Organization" (and by virtue of that,
>> "Library"), it was implied that one could point at or inline a full-on
>> Library type. Perhaps we should include one or more examples like the
>> following for the purposes of clarity:
>>
>> <div>Library: <span itemprop="seller" itemscope
>> itemtype="Library"><span itemprop="name">Example Branch
>> 1</span></span></div>
>>
>> If we go this route, of course all of the properties for Library could
>> be inlined like openingHours, etc, but more realistically we would
>> want to use a URL to fully describe the Library. I do eventually hope
>> to do this for Evergreen, as we store hours of operation, email
>> address, physical address, phone number, etc for each library... just
>> haven't got there yet.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Dan. I'm wondering about the Library as Seller, and if there
>>> isn't a
>>> case to be made to also/instead include http://schema.org/Library. I'm
>>> fine
>>> with availableAtOrFrom for the holding location, but it seems that we are
>>> missing the information about the library itself as a location. This may
>>> not
>>> appear as such in library catalogs because, well, you are in that
>>> library's
>>> catalog so it's a given.
>>>
>>> I realize that this is a bit fuzzy because holding locations can be
>>> branches
>>> of a library system, which are schema.org/Library(s) in their own right.
>>> However, a holding location could also be something like "Reference" so
>>> the
>>> identity of the library as local business (which is where it is in
>>> schema)
>>> is not explicit.
>>>
>>> ?? other thoughts?
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/18/13 7:25 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks so much for your patience and contributions over the past few
>>>> months on the Holdings-as-Offer recommended usage document at
>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/**schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_**Offer<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_Offer>
>>>>
>>>> I spent some time after our call yesterday tweaking the document to
>>>> better reflect some of our rationale for the property mappings that
>>>> came up during our discussions (both on list and via calls). My hope
>>>> is that the target audience will be able to efficiently follow the
>>>> "What? That's weird... Oh, I get it!" path that we've travelled to
>>>> arrive here. (Okay, I admit, future-me is likely part of that target
>>>> audience.)
>>>>
>>>> I've added suggested mappings for various item statuses that had until
>>>> now been buried in the examples, so we can support both the
>>>> likes-to-read-the-doc and the quick-copy-and-paste audience.
>>>>
>>>> But I do have one last question. The rationale I gave for marking up
>>>> "Shelving location" as "description" rather than "availableAtOrFrom"
>>>> as the range of the latter property is "Place", and as a shelving
>>>> location is really just a subsection of a Place, we would need to use
>>>> the Place->containedIn->Place if we wanted to be formal about the
>>>> markup.
>>>>
>>>> However, I'm now thinking that we should relax, take advantage of
>>>> schema.org's pragmatic nature here, and go with "availableAtOrFrom"
>>>> anyway, with the expectation that most of the time it will simply be a
>>>> Text value like "Stacks", "3rd floor - Reference", or "Kids", while
>>>> still supporting the formal range of Place. The advantage of
>>>> "availableAtOrFrom" is that it would give the attribute a tighter
>>>> scope than "description" and processors would be able to glean more
>>>> meaning when they run across it.
>>>>
>>>> +1 / -1 to recommending "availableAtOrFrom" as a mapping for "shelving
>>>> location"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>