Re: First draft minimalist periodical/article proposal

On 12/9/13, 9:45 AM, Dan Scott wrote:

>
>> Properties that obviously cross different classes, IMO, need a general home.
>> Someone marking up book chapters may not think to look in Periodical or
>> Article for pagination patterns. (I've talked with DanBri about this, but
>> schema desperately needs a good visualization that is graph-oriented, not
>> hierarchical.)
>
> I think the mechanism is to simply add a domainIncludes declaration
> for each property of interest pointing at the type (for example,
> BookChapter, if it gets defined)..

Which one could have done with MedicalArticle in order to make use of 
citation. So either one takes the view that you only need 
domainIncludes, or that the structure matters, not sometimes one way, 
some times the other.

Honestly, I think that schema.org itself hasn't made this decision -- 
which is why we end up looking at it in both ways. Since "the mechanism 
is simply to add a domainIncludes declaration..." as a technical 
solution, I like to look at what will help people using schema.org as a 
strong motivator for decisions. It's still a crap shoot, I admit.

>
> I'll admit to being surprised at the idea of adding a Pagination
> class; that seems like a much less useful thing to potentially link to
> than an individual issue. And there is no complexity in the pages /
> startPage / endPage properties that binds their relationship (vs. say
> a Contributor class that would let one encode or encapsulate the
> nature of the contribution, rather than requiring every possible type
> of contributor to become its own property).

I don't know what you mean by "every possible type of contributor to 
become its own property" but the reason that I have for moving 
pagination out of periodical is that it is also useful for book/book 
chapter, unless you expect people to domainIncludes Book to Periodical. 
That, I think, would not occur to many people.

>
> FWIW, I originally wanted to name the "pagination" property "pages" or
> "pageNumbers", but balked because schema.org has deprecated most of
> the plural attribute names in favour of the singular. That said, in my
> research last week checking the MLA and APA style manuals, "page
> numbers" was the most commonly used term between the two, followed by
> "pagination". So I would suggest either "pageNumbers" or "pagination".
> This would avoid any possible terminology conflict with "page(s)" as
> in the assistants to members of parliament, or (heh)
> people-typically-teenagers who shelve books at libraries.

Both pageNumbers and pagination sound fine.


>
>>> But given that you want Periodical to be a subclass of Series,
>>> shouldn't that line reflect that deeper nesting and actually look like
>>> the following?
>>>
>>> Thing > CreativeWork > Series > Periodical > Article
>>
>>
>> I have no idea what Series means in relation to Periodical, and hadn't
>> included it in my proposal.
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Periodical_Article_minimal
> is the right page for me to be looking at, right? If so, there's a
> section at the top that says:
>
> """
> Subclass Periodical to Series
>
> Thing > CreativeWork > Series
>
> Periodical will also need to be sub-classed to Series to make use of...
> """
>
> This is why I thought you want Periodical to be a sublass of Series.

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten that the start and end dates were in Series. I 
also suggest further down in the Intangible area that perhaps those 
should be moved to Intangible since that was one of those opportunistic 
subclassings that I find so illogical. So it again brings up the 
question of whether there is any logic to schema.org or if one simply 
wants to subclass promiscuously to get whatever properties one needs. I 
can go with either some semblance of logical arrangement or treating 
schema.org as a flat vocabulary (and doing a lot of opportunistic 
subclassing) but being on the pendulum between them gives me whiplash. I 
think this is a problem that many are having with schema, and 
unfortunately I don't see it getting cleared up any time soon. We should 
probably just decide what our goals are and not worry too much about the 
whole. (I think this is what the medical folks did.)

kc

>
>> I see them as bibliographically distinct, for
>> reasons that I articulated to Antoine a while back. Although series and
>> periodical share the use of volume numbers, I wouldn't consider a periodical
>> a type of series, for my bibliographic concept of series.
>
> Okay.
>
>> If, as you say
>> above, the structure in schema isn't significant, then this deeper nesting,
>> IMO, isn't necessary, and yet sends the message that the structure IS
>> significant. This, again, is a contradiction within schema that encourages
>> structure yet ignores it.
>
> I don't think I said, and did not mean to imply in any way, that the
> structure in schema is not significant. I was just trying to point out
> the domainIncludes approach to go along with the subclass option.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>

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

Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 18:40:40 UTC