Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

I'm fine with tossing in a whole list of "types", but I don't see what 
this has to do with content/carrier if it can contain both. So maybe 
what we're talking about here, instead, is a more general "format"? And 
it would include "book" "picture book" "large print" "MP3" "movie" 
"BlueRay" "Operetta" "Map" and whatever else? If so, I would rename the 
page to reflect that.

Also, audio book is going to need some very specific data elements that 
we don't have yet in schema.org. So I still maintain that audiobook is 
its own thing, not just an additional format on metadata for a book.

kc

On 2/7/13 4:39 AM, Laura Dawson wrote:
> This is essentially how it is accomplished in ONIX as well. There's a
> series of composite tags that can describe the "format" quite adequately.
>
> From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org
> <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>
> Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 5:27 AM
> To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>,
> <public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Content-Carrier Proposal
> Resent-From: <public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:29:17 +0000
>
> Re: Content-Carrier Proposal
> Sticking with the Product Ontology approach for a moment – an audiobook
> in WMA on a cd would just be a combination of multiple types thus:
>
>     http://schema.org/Book
>     additionalType: http://www.productontology.org/id/Audiobook
>     additionalType: http://www.productontology.org/id/ Windows_Media_Audio
>     additionalType: http://www.productontology.org/id/ Compact_Disc
>
> The sub-types of MeadiaObject, as you suggest, may also be fertile
> ground for other types to combine. So by adding:
>
>     additionalType: http://schema.org/ MeadiaObject
>
> To the example above, you could utilise the duration, region, etc.
> properties that come with it to helpfully expand the description.
>
> I think part of the issue is the natural [librarian] urge to identify
> what is content and what is carrier.  In some of the examples we are
> discussing there are three or more elements – audiobook, mp3, CD – film,
> iso file, DVD – resulting in confusion about what to do with the middle
> ones.  Personally I believe trying to enforce that categorisation of
> attributes is not helpful.   MP3, paperback, European region DRM
> protected, DVD, punched card, Kindle format, and/or a box set are all,
> often, cumulative attributes of equal weight and importance.
>
> Within the library metadata community, deciding what are content vs what
> are carrier attributes has been a topic of of much, often inconclusive,
> discussion that surfaces as each new format, device or encoding emerges.
>   I get the feeling that whatever is decided, the rest of the world just
> treats them as attributes of the thing.  Libraries have used these
> categorisations to help them build [facets in] user interfaces, which
> they could continue to do based on their local practices, but without
> enforcing that view on the non-library consumers of bib data.
>
> So what I am trying to say in my long-winded way is that I don’t believe
> we need content/carrier specific properties adding to Schema.org types
> to adequately describe these features.  We can achieve the same by using
> the additionalType property, combining schema types onto CreativeWork
> sub-types, and external types such as those sourced from
> productontology.org, to build a description of the thing in question.
>
> ~Richard.
>
> On 05/02/2013 19:25, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>     I've looked again at the content-carrier proposal and I believe that it
>     confounds content and carrier, so maybe we need a bit more
>     clarification.
>
>     The proposal uses "audiobook on CD" for carrier. Clearly, however,
>     "audiobook" is a creative work with producers, a reader (very important
>     - audio book readers are becoming famed for their performances), a date
>     of creation, not to mention information like "abridged/un abridged" and
>     separate copyrights. An audiobook can have a number of carriers,
>     including being digital in WMA or MP3 format, with or without
>     specific DRM.
>
>     Carrier needs to be defined much like mime types -- very strictly
>     limited to the physical form or digital encoding of the content, but not
>     the content genre. If this makes sense to folks, then perhaps we can
>     come up with a shared definition and some examples.
>
>     The difficulty, as I see it, is with the combination of physical carrier
>     ("Compact Disc") and encoding ("MP3 w. Overdrive DRM"). To what extent
>     can we make assumptions that a "CD" is a "CD" for all purposes? For
>     example, with DVDs, there are those horrid region codes that you must
>     specify or people don't know if they can play the DVD in their player.
>     So "DVD" alone does not define the encoded DRM; instead, there are two
>     parts: physical carrier (DVD) and encoding (region-limited DRM). Or I
>     can copy a large file to DVD that is a .iso file. Are these both
>     carrier?
>
>     We might want to look at the sub-types of
>     http://schema.org/MediaObject
>
>     These appear to be intended only for online/embedded media, but probably
>     have some overlap with our case.
>
>     kc
>
>     On 2/4/13 4:22 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>     > Richard,
>     >
>     > as also discussed off-line, I changed the microdata/RDFa coding a bit. The previous solution in microdata was
>     >
>     > <span property="additionalType" href="..." >
>     >
>     > but that is invalid HTML5 (@href can appear on <link> and <a> elements only). I added <link> to the encoding instead (microdata allows the usage of <link> anywhere, not only in the header).
>     >
>     > I have also changed the RDFa part to be more in line with that version of microdata by folding the type specification into @typeof directly (RDFa allows that, the usage of explicit rdf:type or schema:additionalType is, though correct, unnecessary...)
>     >
>     > Cheers
>     >
>     > Ivan
>     >
>     > On Feb 2, 2013, at 22:04 , Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>     >
>     >> Hi all,
>     >>
>     >> I have just added a Content-Carrier proposal to the Wiki.
>     >>
>     >> It does not propose extension of the vocabulary as such, but I have linked it from the Vocabulary Proposals page <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>
>     as it is a proposal as to a recommended way to apply the current
>     vocabulary to address an issue that concerns this group.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> ~Richard.
>     >
>     >
>     > ----
>     > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>     > Home:http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>     > mobile: +31-641044153
>     > FOAF:http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>     ph: 1-510-540-7596
>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 13:30:54 UTC