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

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

From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:52:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJcoVMggWGw64RDNApsLB6zKs_1Ns5V41gPwsBU-UZLSK0jcEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Cc: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:

>  Hi all,
>  The SchemaBibEx Group <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/> has
> completed a significant piece of work to arrive at a proposal to address
> the basic description of Articles within issues and/or volumes of
> periodicals of most types - scholarly journals, magazines, comics, etc.
> The intention being to establish a basic structure that would be applicable
> to many areas, which could be built upon in more specific ways for certain
> domains if need in the future.
>  The proposal is on the Web Schemas wiki:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works
>  It proposes three new Types: *Periodical*, *PublicationVolume*,
> *PublicationIssue*, and added properties for two existent Types: *Article*
> , *CreativeWork*.
>  Through this work it became clear that the same framework would also
> support the description of multi-volume works (e.g.. Lord of the Rings)
>  We also propose, although it is not our direct area of concern, that the
> *Blog* type would then naturally fit in the type hierarchy as a sub-type
> of our proposed *Periodical* type.
>  A couple of issues that arose in our discussions that we would wish to
> seek comment from the list:
> *sameAs or url*
>    -  In one of our examples we reference the uri of another description
>    of the article described:
>       - <a property="sameAs" href="
>       http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.682254">
>       10.1080/01639374.2012.682254</a>
>    - The discussion was as to if ‘url’ was the appropriate property to
>    use instead of 'sameAs’.
>    - I shared the majority view that ‘sameAs' was correct.
>  *Stating owl equivalence or not*
>    - Some of the proposed properties are derived from the bibo ontology.
>     Our inclination is to recommend that in the published documentation
>    owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty should be included, as
>    against just referencing in text bibo as their inspiration.
> Note that a draft RDFS is at
it currently lacks the owl:equivalent* assertions, but otherwise I
it is pretty close to being complete.
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 20:53:48 UTC

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