Re: Missing Schema.Org properties

I do, however, see a significant difference between schema.org and the 
XML structure of ONIX (or any other XML-based metadata): schema.org 
allows the data to be flattened to a single horizon of data. This is for 
the sake of simplicity, if I understand correctly. There seems to be a 
philosophy in schema.org that avoids a strict division of descriptions 
into "right" and "wrong." XML, instead, is really an enforcement mechanism.

I'm leery of adding much structure to schema.org. Or at least, of either 
requiring it or relying on it. That makes the identifier "problem" 
particularly difficult. It is for this reason that I asked, in response 
to Shlomo's post, whether one can make use of the self-identifying 
nature of URIs. That doesn't help us with non-URI identifiers, but it 
seems that we are moving increasingly in the direction of "fully formed" 
identifiers.

kc

On 12/3/12 8:41 AM, Graham Bell 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
>> <mailto: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 <http://schema.org>.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~Richard.

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 18:28:08 UTC