Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

In the whole business of resource categorization, I sometimes lean toward a flat solution.  So instead of building up hierarchies of broad distinctions, with narrower subtypes, and even narrower sub-subtypes, etc. -- why not have single types, with definitions as clear as possible, but without too many implications or restrictions (which a different user or community would resist)?

And using these flat types is just assigning and adding whatever fits, without having to think too much about parents, children, siblings, or overlaps etc.

My 2 ct.

Reinhold

-- 

Reinhold Heuvelmann
German National Library
IT / Office for Data Formats
Adickesallee 1
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Telephone: +49-69-1525-1709
Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
mailto:r.heuvelmann@dnb.de
http://www.dnb.de

*** Reading. Listening. Understanding. German National Library ***


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 15:18
An: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

Library data does have a short list of "types" that you can find as the 
categories of 007 fields:

007--MAP
007--ELECTRONIC RESOURCE
007--GLOBE
007--TACTILE MATERIAL
007--PROJECTED GRAPHIC
007--MICROFORM
007--NONPROJECTED GRAPHIC
007--MOTION PICTURE
007--KIT
007--NOTATED MUSIC
007--REMOTE-SENSING IMAGE
007--SOUND RECORDING
007--TEXT
007--VIDEORECORDING

Some may have to be renamed to be useful, and not all are creative works 
(e.g. remote-sensing image). I think this would get it down to 6-8 types.

kc

On 2/13/13 7:16 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> On 13/02/2013 12:12, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
>> wrote:
>>> In principle I agree with you - it is a kludge of a solution and Microdata
>>> could be improved by the ability to support multiple type URIs.
>>
>> My reading of the HTML 5 Microdata spec is that multiple types are allowed:
>>
>>    The itemtype attribute, if specified, must have a value that is an
>>    unordered set of unique space-separated tokens that are
>>    case-sensitive, each of which is a valid URL that is an absolute
>>    URL, and all of which are defined to use the same vocabulary.
>>    The attribute's value must have at least one token. [1]
>
> It is the 'same vocabulary' bit that is the sticking point that triggered
> the 'addtionalType' work around.
>
>>
>>> The original 'Library' extension proposal that accompanied the OCLC WorldCat
>>> linked data release last year, highlighted some of the carrier types
>>> (catalogued by libraries which contribute records to WorldCat) that were
>>> missing from Schema.  I am confident that that proposal will be superseded
>>> by recommendations from this group.
>>
>> If memory serves it highlighted all of the carrier types, or at least
>> a lot more than I would have, which is something I will resist doing
>> in schema.org.
>
> You and I both.
>
>> If OCLC wants to publish a comprehensive list of
>> carrier types for use in microdata and RDFa that seems fine.
>
> An option open to everybody which I see nobody rushing to undertake.
>
> However, with the help of Product Ontology and the infrastructure of
> Wikipedia, the community have made a really good start.
>
>
>> But
>> baking all of that into schema.org is not palatable for me, especially
>> given the overlap with types that are already present.
>
> You and I both.
>
>> Is it too
>> difficult for us to itemize which types are not present in schema.org
>> that we need to have for expected use of bibliographic data?
>
> If it is not that difficult, some body, or individual, may see the benefit
> and take on the task, and the associated maintenance responsibility - one of
> the national libraries, LoC, NISO, BIBFRAME, OCLC, Code4Lib?
>
> Personally I would question if it would not be better to apply such effort
> to improving Wikipeadia's descriptions of these things and thus increasing
> product ontology's value to the world - not just libraries.
>
>> Can we
>> take lossless transformation of MARC to schema.org off the table?
>
> Its not on my table - I am looking to provide a vocabulary to enable the
> description of anything (with a focus in this group on the bibliographic
> domain).  Plus encourage the publishing/exposure of resource identifiers
> that can add value to such descriptions - what in the broadest sense we
> [library folk] describe as authorities.
>
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#att
>> r-itemtype
>>
>
>
>
>

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

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 14:39:04 UTC