W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Citation markup with Periodical proposal

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:57:36 +0200
Message-ID: <53479260.2060409@kcoyle.net>
To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Thanks, Richard. I did a modification of the markup with the date 
following the author's name (which is the APA, Turabian and Chicago 
style). The turtle is below. Because of the position of the date, the 
publication issue is invoked twice. If that's not a problem, then I'd 
suggest adding one of those formats as well to our extended "how to use" 

@prefix rdfa: <http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#> .
@prefix schema: <http://schema.org/> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .

    rdfa:usesVocabulary schema: .
    rdf:type schema:ScholarlyArticle;
    schema:author "Carlyle, Allyson.";
    schema:isPartOf _:2;
    schema:isPartOf _:3;
    schema:isPartOf _:4;
    schema:isPartOf _:5;
    schema:name """Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR
     and the Bibliographic Universe""";
    schema:pageStart "264";
    schema:pageEnd "273";
    schema:sameAs <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.682254> .
    rdf:type schema:PublicationIssue;
    schema:datePublished "2006" .
    rdf:type schema:Periodical;
    schema:name "Library Resources and Technical Services" .
    rdf:type schema:PublicationVolume;
    schema:volumeNumber "50" .
    rdf:type schema:PublicationIssue;
    schema:issueNumber "4" .


On 4/10/14, 11:58 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> An example for “/An article citation in MLA format, using a 'flat'
> approach that simplifies markup by not specifying an explicit
> relationship between the periodical, volume, and issue/” has now been
> added to the proposal document here
> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works#Example_3_-_An_article_citation_in_MLA_format.2C_using_a_.27flat.27_markup_approach>.
> ~Richard
> On 9 Apr 2014, at 14:50, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org
> <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>> Coming out of a day of wall-2-wall meetings to find this list has made
>> the points I was going to make and formed a general consensus is great!
>> So all I can add is, support to Dan’s earlier comment that the
>> SchemaBibex "/proposal slants toward hierarchical markup/” yet "/At
>> the same time, we can also support quite flat markup/" - “ /..the
>> proposal fills a significant gap in the schema.org
>> <http://schema.org/> vocabulary./”
>> Plus I acknowledge that the examples in the proposal are lacking one
>> that demonstrates this flat approach.
>> I will work with Dan to get such an example added to the proposal and
>> also take this into account when we add to the SchemaBibEx Recipes and
>> Guidelines
>> <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Recipes_and_Guidelines> section,
>> once it has been adopted
>> Thanks to Karen for raising this and to all who contributed.
>> ~Richard
>> On 9 Apr 2014, at 14:14, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net
>> <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:48:56PM +0200, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> Thanks, Niklas and Dan and Adrian.
>>>> Niklas, yours is a successful version of something that I tried
>>>> unsuccessfully - nesting all of the periodical "parts" in between
>>>> article properties. The turtle makes sense to me, even though the
>>>> RDFa is hard to grasp (but then, I'm not a machine).
>>>> Dan, I couldn't turtle-ize yours, and the rich snippet tool appears
>>>> to be flaky and wouldn't spit out the pages section. It may be
>>>> equivalent to Niklas' - I have no idea. Sorry.
>>> My fault: I'm much better at RDFa than I am at microdata; I should have
>>> prefixed http://schema.org/ to the PublicationVolume / PublicationIssue
>>> types in my microdata example. At least that works as I meant it to in
>>> http://linter.structured-data.org
>>> <http://linter.structured-data.org/> and
>>> http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller (and by the way, Gregg, you rock
>>> for providing both of those services!)
>>> In any case, the core difference between Niklas's and my example is that
>>> I did not include any nesting, because I thought flat was what you were
>>> asking for. And yes, the Rich Snippet Tool is well-known for dropping
>>> properties that it doesn't recognize (it complains about isPartOf and
>>> presumably can't be bothered to complain about pageStart / pageEnd).
>>> Let's get this proposal adopted and put the Rich Snippet Tool to work!

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 06:58:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC