Re: First draft minimalist periodical/article proposal

+1 on being able to align with http://bibliontology.com/

Thanks,
Shlomo

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 9, 2013, at 21:37, "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com<mailto:ross.singer@talis.com>> 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

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<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> 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> 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> 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<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> 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> http://kcoyle.net

m: 1-510-435-8234<tel:1-510-435-8234>
skype: kcoylenet