RE: Discussion on schema.org public-vocabs list

All

Mike Heaney's extension to his collection-level description model, Users and
Information Resources: An Extension of the Analytical Model of Collections
and their Catalogues into Usage and Transactions [1], might prove useful,
even though it's too detailed for high-level models.

Cheers

Gordon

[1] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cd-focus/model-ext/CD2-principles-v2-2.pdf


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org] 
Sent: 03 December 2012 16:13
To: Karen Coyle
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
Subject: Discussion on schema.org public-vocabs list

I've copied this into SchemaBibEx, from the public-vocabs list, as I believe
that the discussion has turned a little too library-ish for that wider
group.  ;-)

Karen,

I agree that 'we' (who, try to, understand how libraries operate) understand
that there may be several transactions, some with ILL in the name, behind
the scenes of such an operation.  However, as our world interfaces with the
wider web world, I think that there is too much [implicit] business logic in
the differentiation between loan and inter-library loan.

What background operations and data may be triggered by a request [say to
get the photocopy or pdf] you describe will be down to libraries and their
suppliers (and our internal domain data formats and protocols) to worry
about.  From an outside world point of view, it is a request to either loan
or buy something.  That is all our [data] consumers need/want to know.

This is where I like Schema's principle of balance between simplicity and
expressiveness.  

~Richard.


On 03/12/2012 10:41, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Well, sort of. For starters, I wasn't sure when we'd need it, but then 
> remembered that in some union catalogs, and when using things like 
> OpenURL, you often see the holdings of other libraries, SOME of whom 
> have an ILL agreement with others. So "available for ILL" could be a 
> message that is conveyed. It COULD be an institution-to-institution 
> loan, but these days it can also mean the individual user directly 
> "getting a copy" -- once a photocopy, now at times a 
> password-protected PDF that the user can download. Right or wrong, 
> this is still called an ILL transaction.
> 
> So the ILL can be directed at a user, not an institution, although the 
> institution is there as a middleman because ILLs have costs and are 
> counted as part of the standard library statistics.
> 
> I'd tend to leave it in as a distinct event.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 12/3/12 7:01 AM, Dawson, Laura wrote:
>> Ah, right.
>> 
>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:58 PM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
wrote:
>> 
>>> I was imagining that interlibrary loan would be a 'loan' process 
>>> between organisations, as against organisations and people - 
>>> applying the principle of balance between simplicity and expressiveness.
>>> 
>>> ~Richard.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 03/12/2012 09:42, "Dawson, Laura" <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Interlibrary loan as well
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:38 PM, "Richard Wallis" 
>>>> <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Liking the Actions/Activities proposal.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Coming from the library world I would like to see some of the 
>>>>> actions that come from that world being represented in the 
>>>>> emerging vocabulary proposals, such as: loan, reserve (sometimes 
>>>>> called 'place hold'), renew loan, return, obtain licensed access 
>>>>> to a resource (eg. Student on a campus to a journal article).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Although close to other actions like rent or buy, the actions for 
>>>>> gaining access to, often free at the point of use, resources via 
>>>>> libraries, university services, etc. is sufficiently different I 
>>>>> believe to warrant such representation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 30/11/2012 19:23, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi folks
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A few things on the schema.org front:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Back in April there was some discussion towards an improved 
>>>>>> model for Actions/Activities. I have just uploaded a new 
>>>>>> work-in-progress document giving a first minimal version of a new 
>>>>>> approach, based on discussion amongst the schema.org partners. It 
>>>>>> is still in rough form but there should be enough to give a good 
>>>>>> impression of the thinking behind it. The draft describes some 
>>>>>> vocabulary structures that allow description of 
>>>>>> potential/possible future actions, as well as actions/activities 
>>>>>> that have occurred. While this touches on themes addressed by a 
>>>>>> variety of other efforts (including but not limited to 
>>>>>> RSS/Atom/ActivityStreams for past-tense 'activities'; Good 
>>>>>> Relations for commerce-related action opportunities; WebIntents, 
>>>>>> ...), we have focussed for now on describing a basic core structure
that balances simplicity and expressiveness.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A fairly short PDF document
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/7/79/Schema.orgActionsMinimaldraft.
>>>>>> pdf is linked from 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ActivityActions
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. The Audience proposal; based on the RDFa schema in 
>>>>>> https://bitbucket.org/elderos/schemaorg/src I've built a test 
>>>>>> version of the schema.org site that includes the Audience 
>>>>>> proposal (see http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Audience ). The 
>>>>>> draft site is at http://sdo99a.appspot.com e.g. see 
>>>>>> http://sdo99a.appspot.com/Audience
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is the second use of the HTML+RDFa+RDFS extension machinery 
>>>>>> I mentioned recently 
>>>>>> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Nov/0011.html).
>>>>>> More should follow - there are quite a few proposals pretty much 
>>>>>> ready, so I'll first put them up as individual test sites for review.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Class/Property
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are several cases (including the above-mentioned Actions 
>>>>>> draft) where it is useful within schema.org to have a first class 
>>>>>> type representing the notion of 'Class', and of 'Property'. This 
>>>>>> is rather meta and while it is not something designed for 
>>>>>> mainstream webmasters to encounter, it will help with structuring 
>>>>>> and documenting the vocabulary.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have written up a proposal for adding these (and aliasing them 
>>>>>> to rdfs:Class, rdf:Property) at 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgMetaSchema  
>>>>>> ...alongside a proposal to use schema.org/domainIncludes and 
>>>>>> schema.org/rangeIncludes in our RDFa representation of the schema.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Comments on any / all of the above are welcomed; ideally in the 
>>>>>> WebSchemas area of the W3C wiki or here on public-vocabs. If you 
>>>>>> reply by mail please adjust the Subject line to match your topic...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>

Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 16:43:58 UTC