- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:45:34 -0800
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
It kind of depends on what you consider a bibliographic identifier. So maybe our first step should be to define that. Here are the ones that I find in the MARC21 format: 010 - Library of Congress Control Number (NR) Full | Concise 013 - Patent Control Information (R) Full | Concise 015 - National Bibliography Number (R) Full | Concise 016 - National Bibliographic Agency Control Number (R) Full | Concise 017 - Copyright or Legal Deposit Number (R) Full | Concise 020 - International Standard Book Number (R) Full | Concise 022 - International Standard Serial Number (R) Full | Concise 024 - Other Standard Identifier (R) Full | Concise 025 - Overseas Acquisition Number (R) Full | Concise 026 - Fingerprint Identifier (R) Full | Concise 027 - Standard Technical Report Number (R) Full | Concise 028 - Publisher Number (R) Full | Concise 030 - CODEN Designation (R) Full | Concise 031 - Musical Incipits Information (R) Full | Concise 032 - Postal Registration Number (R) Full | Concise 035 - System Control Number (R) Full | Concise ?036 - Original Study Number for Computer Data Files (NR) Full | Concise 074 - GPO Item Number (R) Full | Concise I think this is all of them.... Then we go on to the classification codes: 050 - Library of Congress Call Number (R) Full | Concise 052 - Geographic Classification (R) Full | Concise 055 - Classification Numbers Assigned in Canada (R) Full | Concise 060 - National Library of Medicine Call Number (R) Full | Concise 070 - National Agricultural Library Call Number (R) Full | Concise ?072 - Subject Category Code (R) Full | Concise And that doesn't cover thesauri. However, we may want to ignore any thesauri that cannot provide URIs? kc On 12/4/12 11:28 AM, Ross Singer wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com > <mailto:ehs@pobox.com>> wrote: > >> Call me naive, but I contend that most bibliographic identifiers are >> expressable as URIs (URNs, info-uris, URLs) and that as such they can >> use microdata's itemid [1]. Is there really a problem here? > > +1 > > I was hoping to suggest something along these lines, but had lacked the > cycles to actually do the research to back it up. > > -Ross. >> >> //Ed >> >> [1] >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#global-identifiers-for-items >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/4/12 5:01 AM, Shlomo Sanders wrote: >> >> For what it is worth, I prefer: >> >> ISBN-10<span property=" identifier" >> typeof="ISBN">0316769487</__span> >> >> >> I don't think this is correct -- unless you have a property that >> is "ISBN". The "typeof" takes a property, not a value. >> >> Any values have to be outside of the <> unless you use a meta tag. >> see: >> http://schema.org/docs/gs.__html#advanced_missing >> <http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#advanced_missing> >> >> Maybe that's how we'll have to go - with meta. >> >> kc >> >> >> >> Or >> ISBN-10: <span itemprop="isbn">0316769487</__span> >> >> These are short and clean. >> The itemprop="isbn" is not generic since the valid values for >> itemprop is enumerated? >> Is that the same issue for typeof? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 14:58 >> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Missing Schema.Org <http://Schema.Org> properties >> >> Do we need to consider how this might be displayed, since >> schema.org <http://schema.org/> generally wraps around a >> display? These two options would result in different displays: >> >> On 12/4/12 3:33 AM, Shlomo Sanders wrote: >> >> How is this as a schema.org <http://schema.org/> >> "friendly" version of the ONIX structure: >> >> <div typeof="identifier"> >> <span property=" identifierValue >> ">0316769487</span> >> <span property=" identifierType ">ISBN</span> >> </div> >> >> >> 0316769487 ISBN >> >> >> >> Seems too long to me, perhaps: <span property=" >> identifier" typeof="ISBN">0316769487</__span> >> >> >> 0316769487 >> >> The schema.org <http://schema.org/> documentation shows a >> similar example to this latter approach using price: >> >> Price: <span itemprop="price">$6.99</span> >> <meta itemprop="priceCurrency" content="USD" /> >> >> This gets the "$6.99" display for the human reader, plus the >> currency type for processing. >> >> The current use of ISBN is illustrated as: >> >> ISBN-10: <span itemprop="isbn">0316769487</__span> >> >> If we go with id type and value, then display is limited by >> the defined types, unless we leave type very loose. To get the >> same display as the ISBN immediately above, we'd need: >> >> <div itemprop="identifier" >> itemscope="http://schema.org/__Identifier >> <http://schema.org/Identifier>"> >> <span itemprop="idType">ISBN-10: </span> >> <span itemprop="idValue">0316769487<__/span> >> </div> >> >> Does identifier type do what we want if it's not a controlled >> value? Or would we need a <meta> with a controlled value? >> >> kc >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>] >> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 20:28 >> To: Graham Bell >> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org >> <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Missing Schema.Org <http://Schema.Org> properties >> >> I do, however, see a significant difference between >> schema.org <http://schema.org/> and the XML structure of >> ONIX (or any other XML-based metadata): schema.org >> <http://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 <http://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 >> <http://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 <tel:%2B44%2020%207503%206418> >> Mob: +44 7887 754958 <tel:%2B44%207887%20754958> >> >> 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 >> <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> >> <mailto: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/> >> <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/>>. >> >> kc >> >> >> ~Richard. >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596> >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> <http://kcoyle.net/> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596> >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> <http://kcoyle.net/> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 <tel:1-510-540-7596> >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 19:46:00 UTC