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

Re: Proposal: Periodicals, Articles and Multi-volume Works

From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAY5AM2Pz9gYNVj5FejHoGYamd9HZVr3jZ2D4Mu2A4OrpCymuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Shlomo Sanders
<Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com> wrote:
> Isn't a scholarly article Peer Reviewed which not something a regular article would gave?

I think that typically the answer is yes, and that's what using the
type ScholarlyArticle implies, although edited journals may also be
considered scholarly (falling under the category of open peer review,
perhaps).

By "no difference other than name" I was really just speaking about
the schema.org properties available to the Article and
ScholarlyArticle types. If there's a clear statement about the
publishing principles of the journal,
http://schema.org/publishingPrinciples (which is available to
Article/ScholarlyArticle via CreativeWork) should be used.

I have modified the type in the example at
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Article#Example_2 to use
ScholarlyArticle instead.

> What about levels of Open Access? Is that shared or different.

My understanding is that schema.org refuses to include license
properties, which I believe trying to annotate levels of Open Access
would fall under.

In the LRMI integration discussion at
http://www.lrmi.net/discuss?place=msg%2Flrmi%2F2MS95ox79i0%2FC6d9sZ9SGF0J
, when asked why useRightsURL was not included, Dan Brickley responded
"See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0089.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0093.html
... this is one of those areas where schema.org is extra careful about
introducing new vocabulary that might cause confusion. Publishers are
free to include whatever markup they like in their pages."

And also from http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org
: "For legal reasons, schema.org cannot contain elements for modeling
licensing conditions, because site-owners may try to use them to
express complex licensing terms for the use of their content by search
engines, which cannot be properly handled by Web-scale crawlers."

That said, http://schema.org/publishingPrinciples can be used here as
well, and hopefully Open Access articles will make use of the
http://schema.org/articleBody property to include the text inline, or
provide http://schema.org/url properties that resolve to the actual
resource rather than a login page; then they'll benefit simply by
being able to be found and made use of without barriers. (And of
course one could make use of the http://schema.org/Offer
agent-promise-object structure to describe paid access to individual
non-open-access articles).

> I am sure there should be differences between scholarly articles and regular articles even if today they are the same.

It would have been fantastic to have brought up those differences
during our last few months of Schema BibEx discussions - but certainly
better to draw them out now rather than later!

Dan
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 14:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:36 UTC