- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:37:52 -0800
- To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- CC: public-schemabibex@w3.org
On 12/9/13, 6:33 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > > 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. Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "elsewhere." The periodical is something that is published over time in discrete parts, and the serially published parts are usually in the form of volumes (that are usually temporal, e.g. they represent a year of publication) and issues (that are the serial "manifestations", numbered subordinate to the volume, and with a physical presence). It is a kind of whole/part relationship. However, it is a whole/part relationship that has a great deal of variation, so no one pattern will work for periodicals in general. In other words, we've got to fudge it somewhere. However, I think that your point is that the metadata has to have the same structure as the periodical. I'm saying that doing so 1) is not necessary for the schema.org markup use case and 2) will not be possible without great complication and 3) schema.org, with its flat namespace, in any case will not reproduce the periodical structure without making the periodical schema very complicated. I think we can do periodical in a way that is analogous to http://schema.org/Series, which has the properties "season" and "episode" where episode is one instance within a season within a series. kc > > -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>> > >> <mailto: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> > >> <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> > >> <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> <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> > >> <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> > >> <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>> > >> <mailto: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> > <mailto: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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net > > m: 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 05:38:22 UTC