RE: Missing Schema.Org properties

+1

 

BTW, Microdata's "itemid" attribute serves the same purpose as RDFa's
"resource" attribute, which serves the same purpose as RDF/XML's
rdf:about attribute, etc. 

 

From: Ross Singer [mailto:rxs@talis.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:28 PM
To: Ed Summers
Cc: Karen Coyle; public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: Missing Schema.Org properties

 

 

On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Ed Summers <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.ht
ml#global-identifiers-for-items

 

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Karen Coyle <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

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]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 14:58
To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: Missing 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">
    <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]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 20:28
To: Graham Bell
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: Missing 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>> 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 http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/> 
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet




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





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