- From: Christoph, Pascal <christoph@hbz-nrw.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:56:25 +0200
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Am 16.09.2013 18:05 schrieb Karen Coyle : > Pascal, what I am finding, perhaps because it's what I hope to find ;-), > is that most functioning systems create a graph design with few > properties exclusive to a particular entity. So I agree that Works can > have subjects, but so can Editions. Agreed. My and Etiennes concern was that a "subject" property was omitted in whole, on whatever level. So I'll copy and paste that property also to the edition level. cheers, pascal > > kc > > > [1] http://viaf.org > > On 9/16/13 8:44 AM, Christoph, Pascal wrote: >> Am 15.09.2013 17:15 schrieb Antoine Isaac : >> >>> The round-up of sites sounds like a great idea, Karen! >> >> The comparison may find that the wikidata book task force[0] misses a >> "dcterms:subject" on the work level. This is what at least Etienne and me is >> thinking.[1] >> Not sure if my proposal "main category topic"[0] is correct - what do you think? >> >> pascal >> >> [0]https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force >> [1]https://twitter.com/dr0ide/status/379496420870328320 >> >>> A. >>> >>>> Thanks, Antoine. I hadn't seen this. I note that they refer to "Work" and "Edition" which is also the terminology used by Open Library. (Plus they have "item" for individual books, like rare books.) I've begun a (hopefully short) round-up of bibliographic sites to see what levels of abstraction they use, and what they call them. This fits into that nicely. >>>> >>>> kc >>>> >>>> On 9/15/13 2:58 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> This may have been sent to the list before, but in case... >>>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force >>>>> >>>>> I believe this can be a quite useful reference in terms of use case. >>>>> These are properties that somehow reflect user needs, it's likely that >>>>> it would end expressed in schema.org one day. >>>>> >>>>> Would it be a task for this group to have a look at this schema, and >>>>> flag any missing properties to schema.org? >>>>> >>>>> Note that it could also bring input for our 'work' debate. They have >>>>> only two levels, work and edition. Apparently they regard the edition to >>>>> be either the expression or manifestion (or both of them in fact), and >>>>> the link between the edition and the work is simply 'edition of'. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Antoine >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 08:57:18 UTC