Re: First draft minimalist periodical/article proposal

I can't say that I'm a fan of including issue and volume in Periodical.
 Not only does it feel wrong, it seems like it's overloading Periodical
with multiple meanings.

I'd definitely prefer:

Periodical > PeriodicalIssue > Article

I have never really seen a compelling case for Volume (since it's kind of
an abstract concept on its own), but Dan noted (off-list) that publishers
will (sometimes) group on them (e.g.
http://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/11134#volume75,
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20?open=51&repitition=0#vol_51).  I'm
not sure I find this a particularly compelling use case, but if somebody
can make a convincing argument that people actually use "volume" as a first
class citizen, I don't know that I would put up too much of a fight against
it (but I'd prefer it to be optional).  I would *really* like to hear the
opinion of some people in publishing on this.  I feel like we're modeling
their universe without any input from them, which is strange.

The main reason I would like to keep "PeriodicalIssue" (or some equivalent)
is to be able to align with Bibliontology (http://bibliontology.com/):
 Periodical would align pretty well with
http://neologism.ecs.soton.ac.uk/bibo#Periodical; PeriodicalIssue to
http://neologism.ecs.soton.ac.uk/bibo#Issue; and Article to
http://neologism.ecs.soton.ac.uk/bibo#Document or
http://neologism.ecs.soton.ac.uk/bibo#Article (I'd probably lean towards
the more conservative superclass, but I don't have a strong opinion either
way).

Bibo only puts 'volume' on Document, which says to me that it was a
compromise between books and serials and associated it with the Article,
rather than the Issue, which probably doesn't apply to us unless there's
commonality between Article and Book.

-Ross.


On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>