- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:04:00 -0800
- To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, public-schemabibex@w3.org
On 12/10/13, 8:19 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > 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 ____? Yes, lots of things have volumes, but that is because there are no rules that publishers need to follow when they use the term for any set that they publish. Lord of the Rings can be published as a three-volume set. A group of DVDs of a TV series can be given volume numbers and sold separately. When you order them on Amazon, you are often ordering a specific volume number. So there isn't just one kind of volume. I've mentioned before that there are two primary patterns: - ongoing (periodical) - fixed (a set of things held together by some concept of product) This is why subordinating volume to only periodical (thus making a three-volume set of Lord of the Rings a periodical) may make it jarring for sometime trying to use schema for that case. > > 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? The proposal of Dan's, as it stands now, is getting closer to simple case, so we may just be able to do this in documentation, as I said before. It, however, does have volumeNumber in PeriodicalIssue. This makes that boxed set a periodical issue. We may not be able to avoid that, but that pretty unintuitive for the boxed set case. kc > > -Ross. > > On Dec 10, 2013 8:21 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net > <mailto: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> > <mailto: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 > <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:__8004ed34f803aa5bb45ed9a2985663__6c> > > <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>> > <mailto: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>> > <mailto: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>> > > > <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>> > <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>> > <tel: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> > <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/> > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/__thadguidry/ > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>>> > > > > -- > 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 Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:04:27 UTC