- From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:33:42 -0500
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPJqReOo8KohWgiawdoYULx_G2OYMYr-Fie0rSQoS+VJ+JM+dg@mail.gmail.com>
On Dec 9, 2013 6:47 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > > > On 12/9/13, 2:18 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > >> >> I still would like to get a journal person's take. Tony Hammond? Alf >> Eaton? Isn't he on this list? Others? I don't know many people at the >> publishers. > > > We could hunt down some serials catalogers. > > I must admit I'm having a hard time thinking of an article as having a volume and issue, or an issue having a volume, since those are, to my thinking, so clearly properties of the journal. Karen, can you extrapolate why you think it would be a journal property? It seems to me that journal hasMany volumes/issues, which would put these properties elsewhere. -Ross. > > kc > > >> >> -Ross. >> >> >> kc >> >> >> >> -Ross. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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 <http://schema.org> >> <http://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 <http://schema.org> >> <http://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 >> <http://schema.org> <http://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 >> < http://www.w3.org/community/__schemabibex/wiki/Periodical___Article_minimal> >> >> >> >> < http://www.w3.org/community/__schemabibex/wiki/Periodical___Article_minimal >> < 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 <http://schema.org> >> <http://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 >> <http://schema.org> >> <http://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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> >> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> <tel:1-510-435-8234 >> >> <tel:1-510-435-8234>> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 02:34:13 UTC