- From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:19:52 -0500
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, public-schemabibex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPJqRePwS-Fy-y6BrjtO0y4x7cgnP=gi0-CtiMWZqj_qnXLd+A@mail.gmail.com>
Karen, is there a commonality between the various things that might have "volumes"? Are they collections? Series? I'm trying figure out if there's a (sellable) common base class that satisfies all the definitions of "thing with volumes". I can't figure out how to word that in a way that makes sense. I guess what I mean is, a Book or a DVD could be a volume of ____? Also, and we can discuss this tomorrow, the Article proposal looks like it could work either way, right? I mean it's mostly a demonstration of using inverse predicates of proposal #1 (for a different use case), is that right? -Ross. On Dec 10, 2013 8:21 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > > On 12/10/13, 3:47 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> Sounds good Niklas. Do you want to add "justARticle2" to the wiki? >> >> >> Well, I started out with your new example. But after renaming >> DocumentIssue to PeriodicalIssue, adding a link (property="isPartOf"), >> putting volumeNumber to the issue, and connecting the things with >> identifiers, it ended up exactly like [1], but with PeriodicalIssue >> instead of Periodical, and pages instead of pagination. :) >> > > Well, perhaps that means it's on the right track. Getting to the same > place from different starting points may be a good thing. > > > >> (From what I've gathered, an issue is basically identified within a >> publication by a combination of volume and issue number?) >> >> So I'd rather see if we can continue on Dan's original proposal by >> merging your versions with that. (It's after midnight now and I have >> loads of work tomorrow, so I'm afraid this mail is all from me prior to >> the telecon.) >> > > If one can be a subset of the other, then perhaps we can, in > documentation, provide "views" that serve different use cases, but where > there is a whole where those use cases all fit together. That sounds almost > too good to be true... but if it works, that's great. > > > >> I do get somewhat nervous about the partOf because we don't always >> know for sure what is part of what. But maybe if you include some >> examples in your proposal we can see how that goes. >> >> >> I just seek to replace partOfPeriodicalIssue and partOfPeriodical in the >> original proposal with isPartOf. Same example otherwise. (I'm sure it is >> transitive, so that if an article is part of an issue which is part of a >> periodical, that article is also part of that periodical. In a general >> case, stating just that directly would thus be perfectly ok.) >> > > So this then would be tied to the collection proposal, which would bring > isPartOf out of its current place sub to a collection of web pages. > > > > That is, unless many kinds of creative works can do with a volume >> number/string (like films, albums, etc.)? >> > > Music CDs and audio book CDs can come with volumes, although theirs are > volumes like the book volumes -- a fixed set, rather than an opened ended > one like periodicals. I have DVDs for TV series that have volume numbers. > It seems that it would be hard to exclude the possibility of of other uses. > > I'm also currently drawing a blank on whether there are other things in > the world aside from creative works that have the concept of volume > attached to them. It's a negative that I cannot prove. > > kc > > >> And it is close to the original -- although the original had >> issuance. But the fact of being reduced, to me, is the key point -- >> and if it can be both reduced AND compatible with the full proposal, >> then I'll be very happy. >> >> >> Sounds great. >> >> Cheers, >> Niklas >> >> [1]: >> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Periodical_ >> Article_minimal#Article.2C_RDFa.2C_from_Niklas >> >> kc >> >> >> On 12/10/13, 1:58 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote: >> >> There are seven distinct items here [1] – shouldn't they be linked >> together (using e.g. partOf)? Also, some items can be identified >> as the >> same (using the pattern I showed earlier, in both RDFa and >> microdata). >> >> Since this proposal defines types for both issues and volumes, >> doesn't >> it end up being very close to the original proposal? Albeit with a >> reduced set of properties. >> >> (And I'd like to reduce the set of properties where possible. I >> prefer >> to use partOf/hasPart instead of distinct properties for each >> possible >> range, unless required by use cases. Externally linked >> parts/containers >> can be typed too, to mitigate the risk of consumers not getting >> the >> nature of the composition.) >> >> Cheers, >> Niklas >> >> [1]: >> http://www.google.com/__webmasters/tools/richsnippets? >> __q=uploaded:__8004ed34f803aa5bb45ed9a2985663__6c >> <http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded: >> 8004ed34f803aa5bb45ed9a29856636c> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Thad Guidry >> <thadguidry@gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com> >> <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>>> >> wrote: >> >> Big Awesome >> +1 >> >> Thanks for this Karen ! >> >> And Schema.org has needed an generic Intangible class for >> Pagination >> for some time now that is not sequestered in CollectionPage >> or >> WebPage types for that matter. >> >> FYI, the flowers-roots (bottom-up) approach is really the >> best for >> Schema.org development and proposals. >> Classes and Types (roots) can develop easily from the needed >> properties that are collected and gathered (flowers). >> >> Hope you like that analogy, and hang in there, there will >> probably >> be many more bumpy rides as you guys go along, I'm sure. :-) >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Karen Coyle >> <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>> >> wrote: >> >> I have done a new (and probably my last) proposal that >> only >> covers article markup, leaving aside the description of >> periodicals qua periodicals and any information about >> volumes >> and issues except for the numbering needed to locate >> the article. >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/____schemabibex/wiki/Article >> <http://www.w3.org/community/__schemabibex/wiki/Article> >> >> <http://www.w3.org/community/__schemabibex/wiki/Article >> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Article>> >> >> You can add any alternatives you prefer to this >> proposal, or >> make other proposals if you see this differently. >> >> kc >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Thad >> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+__ThadGuidry >> <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>> >> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/__thadguidry/ >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Wednesday, 11 December 2013 04:20:21 UTC