- From: Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:45:25 +0000
- To: Alf Eaton <eaton.alf@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <768F135D8DFF3A4A9E4BFF0549723FD953964CD2@IL-EXM02.Corp.Exlibrisgroup.com>
So, based on your answers this is perhaps the proper XML if we need to keep the size down?
<span itemprop="author" itemscope='i' itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" itemid="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50016589">
<span itemprop="name">J.D. Salinger</span>
</span>
If we were to add to this, the order of preference would be to add:
• Vocab
• Property - Still unclear why I need/want to have this duplicated tag. What good does it do me or someone else?
As for granularity of the name (name vs. given and family) I think the simple name is better if there is an itemid.
If there isn’t an itemid then perhaps better to split into given and family.
Thanks
Shlomo
-----Original Message-----
From: Alf Eaton [mailto:eaton.alf@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:16
To: Shlomo Sanders
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: Three steps
On 29 November 2012 06:32, Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com<mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>> wrote:
> I am looking at this snippet that I got from schema.org
>
> <li itemprop="author" property="author" itemscope="itemscope"
> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" vocab="http://schema.org/"
> typeof="Person">
> <span itemprop="name" property="name">
> <span itemprop="givenName"
> property="givenName">Gerhild</span>
> <span itemprop="familyName"
> property="familyName">Wildner</span>
> </span>
> </li>
>
> How does itemscope="itemscope" help?
The itemscope attribute is redundant in most places, when itemtype is also present; itemtype isn't a requirement, though, so itemscope is always used to mark the start of an object.
> What is the purpose of having both itemprop and property?
"itemprop" and "itemtype" are HTML5 microdata attributes, "property"
and "vocab" are RDFa Lite attributes.
> The following snippet appeared in mail from Jason Ronallo:
> <span itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"
> itemid="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50016589">
> <span itemprop="name">J.D. Salinger</span>
> </span>
>
> In this example itemscope appears with no value. Is that just typo?
In HTML, attributes such as "itemscope", "checked", "disabled", etc do not need to have a value - values are only required in XML.
> No vocab. Is that OK?
> No property, just itemtype.
"vocab" and "property" are RDFa Lite attributes, so are not required if the implementation is only using microdata.
>
> We agreed that itemid=http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50016589 is
> what we want but is optional, right?
itemid is always optional, as far as I know.
>
> Shlomo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Ford [mailto:kefo@3windmills.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 17:31
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Three steps
>
> Just to add support to Jason's note, the "itemid" property he included
> in his last example would be ideal, but not mandatory.
>
> We can model People/Organizations, and their relations to
> CreativeWorks, per the current Schema.org guidelines. It's just that
> those libraries that do not have the technological capability to
> either mint a URI for a Person/Organization or make use of an already
> minted URI for the same can omit the "href" or "itemid" property. In
> RDF terms, it just results in a blank node. Perhaps not ideal, but perfectly acceptable.
>
> In any event, the examples at the bottom of http://schema.org/Book for
> "Reviews" omit the "Person" itemtype construct altogether for a simple
> lexical string.
>
> Yours,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On 11/28/2012 09:52 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> It seems to me that Schema.org is already relaxed about these kinds
>> of problems. The value of the author property is _expected_ to be a
>> Person or Organization. Consuming applications on the other hand
>> should expect to get imperfect data, though. Even the Schema.org
>> documentation for a book uses a relative URL from the href to refer
>> to the author. Here's a
>> snippet:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>> <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>> by <a itemprop="author" href="/author/jd_salinger.html">J.D.
>> Salinger</a> </div>
>>
>> But maybe this is a bug?
>>
>> As a consuming application I would also expect to see something like
>> this where a string is used:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>> <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>> by <span itemprop="author">J.D. Salinger</span> </div>
>>
>> But if you are an implementer, read the documentation, and all you
>> have is an author name as a string, there is nothing keeping you from
>> being more exact with that and doing something like the following.
>> This is probably what the recommendation ought to be if you only have
>> an author name as a string.
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>> <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>> by <span itemprop="author" itemscope
>> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">J.D.
>> Salinger</span></span>
>> </div>
>>
>> If you also have some kind of identifier for the person, then you
>> could add an itemid:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>> <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>> by <span itemprop="author" itemscope
>> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"
>> itemid="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50016589"><span
>> itemprop="name">J.D. Salinger</span></span> </div>
>>
>> So while recommendations to the community would be to be as exact as
>> possible there is no requirement that it be so strict.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Richard Wallis
>> <richard.wallis@oclc.org <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org<mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org%20<mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m stepping out of the thread that seems to have developed an all
>> encompassing life of its own [Itemprop for person] to pick up on an
>> issue identified in the recent contributions between Karen and myself.
>>
>> This is the example of how to represent the author when marking up a
>> work (for now lets assume a book with person as an author).
>>
>> I said that the author property of the Book should be a URI to a
>> description of a Person (either a local Person description that
>> onward links to authority like VIAF, or a direct link to an
>> authority).
>>
>> Karen, quite rightly came, back to say that a library may only have
>> a string of characters for the author name so can not do what I
>> describe.
>>
>> This sort of scenario leads me to suggest that we approach such
>> descriptive challenges in a three step process:
>>
>> 1. How to describe what we have, using Schema as it is
>> 2. What changes/enhancements, if any, to Schema could we propose to
>> improve the description [and pragmatically expect the Schema
>> group to accept]
>> 3. Provide examples/recipes for how the markup would look in
>> each case
>>
>>
>> Applying this to the Book->author problem....
>>
>> Step 1.
>> schema:Book->author is a property that requires a link to a Person
>> or Organization – not a literal string. Therefore example markup
>> would require links to Person description either externally supplied
>> or created locally on the fly.
>>
>> Step 2.
>> We only have a string for an author name, so why not suggest that
>> Schema relaxes the restrictions on Book->author to enable the use of
>> strings. Taking account of the underlying philosophy behind Schema
>> (Things not Strings), it is exceedingly unlikely that such a
>> proposal would be accepted as it would break their related entities
>> model of the world.
>>
>> Step 3.
>> We need to provide examples of how we would markup various
>> situations that would cope with my ideal view and Karen’s real
>> situation of only having an author string – plus possibly a few
>> in-between. I believe that it would be possible to satisfy Schema’s
>> need for a Person description (in this case with only a name
>> property) by creating a description in line on the fly.
>>
>> I am conscious that as a group we have not been good at sharing
>> example markup – I include me in that, my RDFa is not as good as I
>> would like it to be – how we rectify this is something I ant to
>> address in the next call. (tomorrow)
>>
>> ~Richard.
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 09:45:59 UTC