- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:02:50 +0000
- To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <A0017BA4-C19D-4E40-8DF4-C0DA153DD89F@oclc.org>
With Karen we have simplified the pagination description. Can I have some +1/-1 voting and any comments for: 1) Adding numberOfPages to PublicationVolume & Article 2) Proposing to public-vocabs as 'Periodicals, Articles, and Multi-volume Works' with the tweaks described applied ~Richard On 17 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote: Currently it is still called Article, as that is the Wiki name - however I suggest we name it 'Periodicals, Articles, and Multi-volume Works' when we propose it. I have updated the proposal to reflect the discussions: * Added the proposal to move Blog under Periodical * Tweaked description of PublicationVolume to mention periodical & multi-volume work * Tweaked description of PublicationIssue to mention periodical & PublicationVolume * Added a multi-volume work example in turtle Question, do we need to add numberOfPages (used on Book) to PublicationVolume, PublicationIssue, and Article? That would cover off standalone Articles and a fuller description of issues & volumes. Hopefully, apart from agreeing my suggestion and my question, I think we are nearly there. Would be great to get this proposed in the next few days. ~Richard On 13 Dec 2013, at 17:19, Jeremy Nelson <Jeremy.Nelson@COLORADOCOLLEGE.EDU<mailto:Jeremy.Nelson@COLORADOCOLLEGE.EDU>> wrote: +1 on realigning Blog under Periodical and letting discussion ensue. Recognizing Blog as a legitimate subclass of Periodical demonstrates our willingness to expand beyond traditional library categories. Jeremy Nelson Metadata and Systems Librarian Colorado College -----Original Message----- From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 9:28 AM To: Adrian Pohl; Dan Scott; lindstream@gmail.com<mailto:lindstream@gmail.com> Cc: Richard Wallis; public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org> Subject: Re: Article Proposal On 12/13/13, 1:09 AM, Adrian Pohl wrote: - "A publication in any medium issued in successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations and intended, such as a magazine, scholarly journal, or newspaper" <- Is this actually a full sentence? :-) No, something got lost. The original statement went on "... intended... to continue indefinitely." It was cribbed from the definition in AACR2. Relation between schema:Periodical and schema:Blog: Currently, schema:Blog is located in the schema.org<http://schema.org/> hierarchy as follows: Thing > CreativeWork > Blog. I guess the proposal should include moving schema:Blog to Thing > CreativeWork > Periodical > Blog. This would also make sense regarding the property schema:issn that belongs to schema:Periodical as some blogs actually have an ISSN. (I just heard about the German blog wisspub.net<http://wisspub.net/> receiving an ISSN.[1]) I understand your statement about blogs, and to me it is factually correct, but I'm not sure the library "continuing resource" point of view would be well received. Perhaps we could suggest it as part of our proposal and see what the reaction is. kc Examples: - I would like to see another example for non-traditional periodicals like a webcomic or a blog. I could provide that one myself if you want to. As I haven't been taking part in the discussion for the last weeks and thus don't know whether you haven't already discussed some of these issues, I hesitate to go ahead and edit the proposal. But I could do the changes myself if you agree with a change proposal and if nobody else adjusts the document accordingly. All the best Adrian [1] See https://twitter.com/pampel/status/411128690828140544 and http://wisspub.net/impressum/ . On 13.12.2013 at 5:20, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com<mailto:denials@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com<mailto:lindstream@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello again, The microdata is now fixed in the following ways: * corrected some itemtype values, which microdata requires to be full URLs (unlike RDFa, which can use @vocab to avoid repetition) * the items are linked together using isPartOf * the same entities are described throughout (instead of six disjoint entities), using @itemid I used @itemid this time, since at least microdata parsers producing RDF get the data right. Unfortunately, @itemid is (also) required to be a full URL in microdata, and it is only allowed if both itemscope and itemtype are also present. It's either that or using @itemref, which as I showed earlier [1] is also somewhat cumbersome (it requires you to sprinkle in @id and glue items together from disparate parts). Though if anyone more versed in microdata can clean it up, please do. I also added an RDFa version (which I find to be less verbose). I really recommend to paste that into RDFa Play [2]. The examples are verified (using RDFLib) to produce the also added Turtle example (minus some web page related details). (Apart from considering the weight of the markup (which gets heavy with this much granularity in once place), the Turtle is what I usually focus on when I reason about the merits and flaws of various properties, types and uses thereof.) Awesome, thanks for fixing this up, Niklas! I was enjoying a visit with Santa at our local public library. Well, my kids enjoyed it too :) I also added a variant with less verbose precision (but using the same properties of course): just an Article linked to a PeriodicalIssue (skipping the volume and periodical). Notice that name, volumeNumber and issn is used on the PeriodicalIssue, indicating that those are, scruffily, "inherited" from the collections above. That's the kind of flexibility I believe we're after. Hmm. I think that might be _too_ scruffy; that example hangs the issn, volumeNumber, and periodical name off of PublicationIssue, which is not valid according to the proposal that we're putting forward, and therefore wouldn't be expected to be parsed correctly by the search engines, right? (I took a quick stab at sorting it out but then realized that the result was going to pretty much mirror the core example...). Thanks, Dan -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net<http://kcoyle.net/> m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 10:03:21 UTC