Re: Article Proposal

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/12/13, 1:04 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, per (c) in
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Dec/0077.html,
>> we need to change the definition of "pages" to better align with Bibo,
>> now that we have the "pageEnd" and "pageStart" properties. Something
>> like:
>>
>> 'Describes the pagination of works that do not run across
>> consecutively numbered pages and thus cannot be simply described by
>> pageStart and pageEnd (for example, "1-6, 9, 55" or "10-12, 46-49").'
>
>
>
> This is one case, but there are other cases as well, so it should say that
> it carries any paginations that are not divided into first and last, for
> whatever reason. That includes "123-456" when the software creating the data
> does not parse these, and things like "xxi, 356p." or "pp. 34-45".

Hmm, I don't think possible limitations of the software creating the
data should be a strong rationale for designing the vocabulary. If a
developer claimed they couldn't parse extremely simple cases like
"123-456" or "pp. 34-45" into the appropriate pageStart / pageEnd
properties, they should probably start looking for a new set of tools
or a new job :)

In any case, I want to ensure that we can consider this property a
valid equivalent to Bibo's.

>>> I changed the example correctly
>>
>>
>> We still need to add itemprop="isPartOf" to connect the article to the
>> issue, volume, and periodical. Are we aiming for "article isPartOf
>> issue, which isPartOf volume, which isPartOf Periodical"?
>
>
> IT's there, under "CreativeWork" - moving it from Collection (which we've
> already proposed") to CW.

My comment was in the context of Richard's statement "I changed the
example correctly", not about the Collection portion of the proposal.
The example does not show the use of isPartOf, thus to a parser it
looks like there are simply a bunch of items with no relations between
them, as I believe Niklas pointed out earlier; see
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004ed5dc9d3f78fead609cd5fd2f0e3

(Aside: what is supposed to be parsed as a single Periodical item ends
up being split between two Periodical items; methinks itemref / id
need to come into play here as well).

Thanks,
Dan

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 22:39:10 UTC