Re: Missing Schema.Org properties

I did check these fields on what I can find of the Moen statistics (a 
large study of MARC field frequency), so there may be some we can defer. 
Unfortunately, what I have of those stats only covers books, not, for 
example, serials or music, so I am making a guess here, but these fields 
seem to be used less in less than 80% of the relevant records:

013 - Patent Control Information (R) Full | Concise
017 - Copyright or Legal Deposit 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
031 - Musical Incipits Information (R) Full | Concise
035 - System Control Number (R) Full | Concise

I rather expected the GPO item number (074) to be higher, but it is not. 
However, I've lost access to the full set of stats so I don't know its 
actual frequency. (Some files are on the original site are giving me 
404) I'll see if I can rectify this.

kc

On 12/4/12 11:45 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 5 December 2012 01:42:51 UTC