RE: Missing Schema.Org properties

If a thing has multiple URIs, then it would make sense to use owl:sameAs
to tie those together; even in Microdata.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ed.summers@gmail.com [mailto:ed.summers@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Ed Summers
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:59 AM
> To: Karen Coyle
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Missing Schema.Org properties
> 
> Offlist Alf Eaton kindly reminded me that the HTML Microdata spec does
> not appear to allow you to encode multiple identifiers for a given
item
> using itemid. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying
that
> this is problematic, for example in use cases like ScholarlyArticle
> where it would be useful to encode a PubMedID and a DOI.
> 
> So I emailed the WHATWG mailing list to make sure that this is
actually
> the case, and to propose that the Microdata spec allow for it [1]. As
> you can see from Ian Hickson's response, itemid doesn't allow for
> multiple identifiers by design. He also had some suggestions for
> workarounds using meta and link with a generic 'id' itemprop [2].
> 
> So I think this leaves us with two options:
> 
> 1) document itemprops in Book ScholarlyArticle, etc for all the
> identifier types that we think are relevant for the bibliographic
> universe: doi, oclcnum, pmid, etc.
> 2) document a pattern for expressing identifiers of different types:
> using meta, link (as Ian suggested) or some other mechanism.
> 
> I'm not sure I have a preference at this point, but I just wanted to
> point out that relying entirely on itemid for expressing identifiers
is
> not going to work. Perhaps it would be useful to document some of the
> design choices on the wiki for further discussion?
> 
> //Ed
> 
> [1] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-
> December/038256.html
> [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-
> December/038257.html
> 
> PS. Sorry for sending this to you twice Karen :-)
> 
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> > 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/microda
> >>>> ta.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 15:32:45 UTC