- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:06:35 -0800
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
I, too, like that idea. They have solved many of the problems we've
brought up by having
1) a "document" class to which monographs, periodicals, and articles can
be sub-
2) a property that represents a stylized citation, like those used for
articles:
Property: bibo:locator
locator – A description (often numeric) that locates an item within a
containing document or collection.
URI:
http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/locator
Domain:
bibo:Document
Range:
rdfs:Literal
Subproperties:
bibo:chapter, bibo:issue, bibo:pageEnd, bibo:pageStart, bibo:pages,
bibo:section, bibo:volume
In this, proposer, volumes, issues, chapters, pages, etc. are all
subproperties. This makes creating markup of a citation easier than
trying to make the citation use a hierarchical structure describes the
top-down relationship between periodicals or books and their parts.
kc
On 12/10/13, 1:02 AM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
> +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
>> <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
>>
>>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 16:07:03 UTC