Re: Itemprop for person

On 11/27/12 8:05 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
> Thanks for the explanations! So, is there a different rule for subject
> indexing of books (one persona should be used) than for description of
> creators (different persona can be used)? If yes, it's a bit strange.

Oh, yes, it is strange. Of course, it's libraries! Here's the entry for 
Clemens:

HEADING:  Clemens, Samuel Langhorne, 1835-1910
000  01553cz a2200241n 450
001  1718977
005  20121024153045.0
008  931008n| azannabbn |a aaa
010  __ |a n 93099439 |z n 88274847
035  __ |a (DLC)n 93099439
100  1_ |a Clemens, Samuel Langhorne, |d 1835-1910
400  1_ |a Klemens, Sami︠u︡ėl, |d 1835-1910
400  1_ |a Klemens, Seĭmeul Lenghorn, |d 1835-1910
400  1_ |a Kʻo-lan-man-ssu, Sai-mi-erh Lang-en, |d 1835-1910
500  1_ |w nnnc |a Twain, Mark, |d 1835-1910
663  __ |a Works by this author are identified by the name used in the 
item. For a listing of other names used by this author, search also 
under |b Twain, Mark, 1835-1910
667  __ |a SUBJECT USAGE: This heading is not valid for use as a 
subject. Works about this person are entered under Twain, Mark, 1835-1910

There's also a code in the Leader that says whether it can be used as a 
subject. So all subject headings are under Twain.

Then in the LC Classification there is an area for literature, and in 
that, presuming that both Twain and Clemens had written novels (not the 
case, but pretend) then they would be given the same classification 
number. One would hope that the class number would also translate to 
Twain, aligned with the subject heading access, but I don't know that 
there is any guarantee.

Before the 1970's and AACR, authors also were given the name of the real 
person, and everything by Twain in US libraries was under "Clemens" 
meaning that users often didn't find what they were looking for. The use 
of pseudonyms as entry points has to do with what the user comes to the 
library knowing, not some concept of what is "correct." And for subject 
access, what is considered the most common name is used.

Note that none of this really translates to anything that we could think 
of as universal identifiers. As I said in my note to Richard, most 
libraries are still using text strings. Moving from text strings to 
identifiers is a future goal, perhaps, but I see schema.org in the 
near-future of libraries as being web page markup of the textual data 
that libraries have. That's step 1. Later steps may include identifiers 
and inclusion of a wide range of identifiers, but I think that will only 
happen with some serious changes in library systems and library data.

>
> Anyway, my point in 2 is indeed about (somewhat) controling value: if
> library mark-up tries to reproduce persona patterns that are really
> specific to library-land and not relevant for more general mark-up
> consumption cases, then library mark-up risks being not very popular...

I think this isn't so much a question about library markup as about 
bibliographic markup. Publishers and Amazon use the name of the person 
that is on the package or product. They may or may not have information 
about other names or name forms that have been used. And it isn't clear 
to me that bookstores will be terribly interested in the "real world 
person" since their job is selling the product with a particular name on 
it and their systems may never get linked into the semantic web (who 
knows?). I agree about all of the desires for linking, but I'm not sure 
that's the role of schema.org. It can be used that way, but I see 
schema.org as being a recipient of links that have many more uses, not 
as the main motivator for creating links. It's the tail wagging the dog, 
and in terms of identifiers and links we should concentrate on the dog, 
and the tail will follow. Meanwhile, a quick entry into schema.org has 
some value.

kc

>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/27/12 1:09 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>
>>> 2. We can ask libraries to munch their various persona into "real"
>>> person records, before exporting the data using schema:person for
>>> representing real persons.
>>
>> For subject access (subject headings and classification) US libraries
>> use only one "persona" where more than one has been used. It is not
>> necessarily the "real" person -- it is the "best known" -- so that in
>> subject classification all works by or about Twain and Clemens are
>> under Twain. You can see which is used in the authority record because
>> "Clemens" is marked "not for use for subject access."
>>
>> That said, I still don't understand the necessity. Remember that
>> schema.org will mark up the library data that is there, as it is used
>> by libraries on their web pages. It's not about exported data, it's
>> about marking up what you show your users. This already means that
>> libraries in Russia will have author Лев Никола́евич Толсто́й, and in
>> the English-speaking world we will have author Leo Tolstoy (or some
>> variant on that). These are the same real person, but I don't think
>> that's the point -- the point is that schema.org allows you to mark up
>> your data, it doesn't control the value space, and the value space is
>> going to be messy.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>>
>>> While 2 may first sound harsh on our community, I believe this we can
>>> name it "reasonable" when library data goes out and meets more general
>>> scenarios. Also, I believe that current initiatives (e.g., every project
>>> that seeks to align name authority with DBpedia) are working towards
>>> making this possible, even though it will be sometimes bumpy.
>>>
>>> An important decision criterion would of course be the usage scenarios
>>> there are, and their accompanying information needs, either voiced by
>>> users or extrapolated by the search engines serving these users. In
>>> other words, what is the take of schema.org on the topic? And how
>>> leading commercial sites are treating personas? (I'm offline while
>>> writing this so can't check, alas).
>>> I suspect anything libraries come up on this issue will have little
>>> weight compared to what search patterns established by Amazon and the
>>> likes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that for other kind of entities like places I'm slighlty less sure.
>>> Maybe there are some applications that would benefit from not trying to
>>> geo-localize places that are not on this Earth.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd argue for Fictional Things.
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Nov 2012, at 18:27, Kevin Ford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> we need to make a strong case for enabling the possibility of
>>>>> fictional medical studies or postal addresses, among other things.
>>>>
>>>> Fictional place names certainly exist -- as in Winnie the Pooh:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:100acre.gif
>>>>
>>>> Or even styled as (fictional) postal addresses:
>>>> 4 Privet Drive
>>>>
>>>> For a Fictional Medical Study, the backstory of the games Portal and
>>>> Portal2 come to mind. In fact, game backstories would often provide
>>>> examples, e.g. the studies at locations such as these
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locations_of_Half-Life
>>>>
>>>> Or I suppose this might do:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/pages/QASE-fictional-BioMedical-Research-Facility/169647519762414
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (maybe http://www.facebook.com/r.php?fbpage_id=169647519762414&r=111
>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/r.php?fbpage_id=169647519762414&r=111> but
>>>> that gives a loginwall):
>>>>
>>>> Pardon the excessive examples. It's the end of the day.
>>>>
>>>> :) -Jodi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 18:00:55 UTC