Re: Missing Schema.Org properties

I have said previously that there is a lot we can take from ONIX (code lists for one). This structure is pretty flexible.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org> wrote:

> Worth saying at this point that this is EXACTLY how ONIX is structured:
> 
> <entityIdentifier>
>     <entityIDType>
>     <IDTypeName>
>     <IDValue>
> </entityIdentifier>
> 
> where 'entity' might be 'product', 'work', 'name', or whatever. There is a controlled vocabulary for common IDTypes, and if you have some proprietary identifier not in the list, you must include a 'likely to be unique' name for it in <IDTypeName> instead.
> 
> A point of history -- ONIX started (in 1999) with a property per identifier type: there were tags called <ISBN> and <UPC>, but as pointed out below, that isn't really practical, so the above XML structure is used extensively now. It's easy to add to the controlled vocabulary when a new identifier comes along, without having to change the schema. In UML, it looks like the attached, and I leave the RDF as an exercise for the reader...
> 
> Graham
> 
> 
> 
> Graham Bell
> EDItEUR
> 
> Tel: +44 20 7503 6418
> Mob: +44 7887 754958
> 
> EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road, London N7 9DP, UK. Website: http://www.editeur.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 3 Dec 2012, at 16:18, Laura Dawson wrote:
> 
>> That might work, actually.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/3/12 7:19 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Shlomo,
>>>> 
>>>> Couple of points.
>>> 
>>>> *Identifiers: *This is a particular concern of mine.
>>> 
>>> Me, too!
>>> 
>>> The approach of
>>>> having a named property for each possible identifier that a CreativeWork
>>>> or a Person could have, just does not scale.  However to handle this you
>>>> will always be disenfranchising some identifier backing group.  Isbn
>>>> seems to of got in because it is know by everyone, oclcnum is obvious
>>>> from where I sit (but that does not make it right).   I think we (in all
>>>> of Schema, not just the bib domain) need an identifier Type with
>>>> properties of ‘identifierValue’ and ‘identifierType’ - which could
>>>> handle either an enumerated list or at least well known identifier names.
>>> 
>>> I believe that this means that "Identifier" becomes a "schema" in schema.org.
>>> 
>>> kc
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ~Richard.
> <publisherID.jpg>