Re: First draft minimalist periodical/article proposal

On Dec 9, 2013 7:21 PM, "Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/9/13, 11:36 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
>
> Hey Ross - did you mean "Article is a subclass of Periodicalissue,
> which is a subclass of Periodical"? Just trying to get clarity on
> this; in my proposal, all three are direct subclasses of CreativeWork
> (so that Article doesn't inherit "issn" from Periodical, for example).
>

No, sorry, bad choice of delimiter. I intended it as hasPart/isPartOf.

-Ross.

> >> Ross, in this scheme, where would volume go? Would it be part of issue?
> >> The volume number itself is considered an important part of a
citation. You
> >> could, I suppose, say that the issue number is volume number + issue
number,
> >> but... it doesn't always work like that.
> >
> >
> > My idea was that "volume" would be a property of "PeriodicalIssue",
yeah.
> > That way you could roughly generate a representation of "Volume" (as
the set
> > of issues) if you absolutely needed this.  I absolutely agree that
volume is
> > essential in the citation and needs to appear *somewhere*.
>
> I had "volumeNumber" on PeriodicalIssue until I created the separate
> PeriodicalVolume; so if we cut PeriodicalVolume out, that's where it
> made the most sense to me, too.
>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree about volume - it seems to mainly be a convenient numbering
system
> >> but without representing *content* per se. Trying to think about
sales, I
> >> did an example with offer, but could only find (online) subscription
offers,
> >> not sales of issues. On the newsstand, an issue has a price, which
> >> presumably is meaningful to periodical publishers (and to the comics
folks).
> >> The only online place where I could find offers for individual issues
was
> >> eBay.
>
> The Google Play Newsstand offers back issues for sale:
> https://play.google.com/store/newsstand/details/Popular_Mechanics_Magazine
> (not sure if this link will show up for you across the border, but
> there is a back issue section about half way down). And there are
> sites like http://backissues.com/publications/New-Yorker which would
> benefit from a schema.org consultant wise in the ways of Offer and
> friends.
>
> > I suppose another example where volumes may tangibly exist is in bound
> > periodicals, but this seems totally edge case-y to me.  Dan mentioned a
use
> > case around volumes as a proxy for editorial boards, but I don't think
it
> > applies universally enough, personally.
>
> Yep, although that's mostly nostalgia from my days at the student
> newspaper. And realistically, that board can and does change from
> issue to issue anyway.
>
> Part of my motivation for a separate Volume class had been to support
> what seemed to be a more pressing requirement on the Comics side of
> things. But further discussions with Peter and Henry (ah, domain
> expertise!) suggest that that was a misunderstanding on my part.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> I've been combing through the Bibo archives and they faced the same
> flat vs. relational dilemma in their past that we're agonizing over
> now; evidently they chose to omit volume as a class. But their
> hierarchy has Issue as a subclass of CollectedDocument, which is a
> subclass of Document... so I believe issues _can_ have volume numbers
> in Bibo.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, the one commonality is both periodicals and books can have
numbered
> >> volumes.
> >
> >
> > Certainly, but I don't think they mean exactly the same thing.  It would
> > require both Book and Article to descend from the same superclass, which
> > might be a hard sell.
>
> Hey, they both descend from CreativeWork! As if that needs yet another
> property... A couple of other options are to have volumeNumber apply
> to both Book and PeriodicalIssue via domainIncludes, or to use
> multiple types (Book with an alternate type of PeriodicalIssue) to
> represent monographic serials.
>
> I'll mention this elsewhere, but given the Bibo precedent (which seems
> to have been working in practice), and the emerging clarity of the
> Comics requirements, I'll revert my proposal back to just a Periodical
> / PeriodicalIssue / Article structure (each a direct subclass of
> CreativeWork). That will reduce the number of new has/partOf
> properties, too. If we do get some publishers who make a pressing case
> for volume as a separate class, or the Bibo folks indicate strong
> regrets about their decisions, it wouldn't be much work at all to put
> it back in.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan