Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

You are beginning to convince me that an AudiobookType - modelled on a
combination of Book and MusicRecording? - may be needed.

Then it could be the base type to be combined with CD, WMA, etc.

Do you want to draft a proposal?

~Richard.


On 07/02/2013 17:09, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Difference between an audiobook and a book or ebook is the same as the
> difference between a recording of a symphony and the printed score for
> that symphony. The audiobook is a performance; it has a performer; it
> has a separate copyright; it may be abridged; other liberties may have
> been taken. An ebook is a new carrier for the same text as the paper
> book. It (presumably) has the same words (and thus same ISTC), same
> copyright, same list of creators. I see book/ebook as a classic
> content/carrier difference. I see book/audiobook as a larger difference
> than a carrier change.
> 
> I believe that music folks would consider a score and a performance to
> be different FRBR:Works. Two different performances would be different
> expressions. However, audiobook is probably the same Work in the minds
> of most users, albeit different expressions. So calling it both a "Book"
> and an "Audiobook" makes sense to me. But it will need *at least* one
> additional field for performer. It turns out that in public libraries
> (and on audiobook sites online) users are as interested in the performer
> as they are the actual author of the text. There are folks who would
> listen to a grocery list if it were read by Simon Prebble ;-).
> 
> kc
> 
> On 2/7/13 7:52 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>> Karen,
>> 
>> I don't think it is a format property we are talking about.  I donšt
>> think it is about the arbitrary separation of attributes in to Content
>> or Carrier
>> 
>> We are trying, in this approach, to identify the sum of basic types of
>> thing that the composite thing we are describing is.
>> 
>> So sticking with our example of an audiobook in WMA format on a CD :
>> 
>>   * It is a CreativeWork
>>   * It may be considered a Book
>>   * It is an AudioBook
>>   * It is WMA
>>   * It is a CD
>>   * It has the attributes of a MediaObject
>> 
>> 
>> Summing together the properties you get from picking one of those as the
>> main type (some might choose CD, others Audiobook, or Book ­ all valid
>> ways to describe our thing) and adding the remainder as additionalType
>> properties.   Which elements are then not available to describe it that
>> you think are missing?
>> 
>> You may be right that an audiobook is something that deserves its own
>> sub-type of Book ­ in which case does Ebook?  Or do we just recommend a
>> new BookFormatType - the current Schema answer for Ebook is to do just
>> that which delivers no extra properties to describe the Ebook specific
>> attributes.
>> 
>> ~Richard.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/02/2013 13:30, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 donšt 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 17:45:45 UTC