- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:32:12 -0600
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
owen, great minds and all of that... I've pulled an audio book display off of my local public library to use as an example. Here's the permalink: http://www.berkeley-public.org/record=b1727690~S11 I also looked at audible.com and audiobooks.com (amazon doesn't seem to have audio books). The commercial sites include really minimal info, so they shouldn't be hard to accommodate. I haven't gotten around to editing the actual html from the public library because of course it's all full of CSS (longing for the old days of simple html). But I will attack this. I will also eliminate some of the data (e.g. multiple subjects -> one subject for illustration). So let's do it. kc On 2/13/13 9:16 AM, Owen Stephens wrote: > When I saw Dan Brickley talk about Schema.org <http://Schema.org> a > little while back (watch it at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-6mhdjE1XE) the thing that struck me is > how incredibly pragmatic the approach was - it was about 'how do people > currently represent this on the web' not 'how best to represent this'. I > keep having to remind myself about this when I think about making proposals. > > With this in mind I've followed Karen's example and started to look at > how Audiobooks are described on the web - I'm keen that whatever markup > we propose is going to support these examples. I've started collecting > examples and added them to the wiki. I did start to work out how these > might be supported by some of the proposals with no, or only small, > changes to the existing HTML markup - but haven't had time to complete > this yet. > > It would be good to get some links to existing library specific displays > of audiobooks as well - don't have any of these yet, so please add to > the wiki if you have some. > > I guess that I'm trying to get into what I think is the schema.org > <http://schema.org> mindset rather than a more general modelling mindset > and ground proposals in real world existing html markup. I'm keen that > we ground proposals in real world stuff, and think this is a way of > ensuring this is what we do. To my mind this is a strength of discussing > specifics like Audiobooks over the more abstract content vs carrier > discussion - if we do this for some key types that exemplify content vs > carrier, we may find a set of consistent approaches that all work in the > same way, or we may find that we need different approaches in different > areas - but we shouldn't worry either way. > > I think we'll stand a better chance getting three proposals for > "Audiobook", "Radio Play" and "TV Show recording" to be added than a > single, more abstract, how to do content vs carrier proposal. > > I'd be interested in knowing if this strikes a chord with others > > Owen > > Owen Stephens > Owen Stephens Consulting > Web: http://www.ostephens.com > Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com> > Telephone: 0121 288 6936 > > On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:03, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET > <mailto:kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET>> wrote: > >> Richard, I don't think that we can declare that each bibliographic >> description describes a single, uncomplex type. To begin with, there >> is that library bugaboo "kit" in which the item in question is >> simultaneously multiple types: >> a kit with multiple parts, each of which is a different thing (a >> puppet, a book, some crayons) >> >> There is also: >> a book with an included CD >> >> There are also many libraries that do not create separate records for >> the hard copy and digital: >> record for a book with an additional link to the online copy >> >> And almost none create separate records for hardcopy and paperbacks. >> >> The upshot is that we will need to handle multiple types in a single >> description. These are also an "AND" relationships, at least in >> relation to the bibliographic data. How would this be done? >> >> [And in another thread, as I say, I do not consider a "CD" to be a >> further typing of a creative work, since I would not say that a "CD" >> is a type of musical work.] >> >> kc >> >> >> On 2/13/13 6:57 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I’ve pulled this out of the audiobook thread as I think it is generally >>> applicable to several areas of our discussions. >>> >>> Karen’s points below highlight several points relevant to this, which I >>> will try to clarify. >>> >>> This emerged from the audiobook thread as audio book is a good example >>> of something in our domain of multiple types – a creative work, possibly >>> a book, with a file format (WMA, MP3, etc), and a physical form (CD, >>> cassette tape, etc.). That thread has moved on and we proposing a new >>> sub-type of CreativeWork – AudioBook, which I agree with. For the >>> purposes of examples in this email am presuming that proposal has been >>> accepted. >>> >>> Starting with Karen’s second question: >>> >>> /Second, it still isn't clear, however, if you have multiple >>> associatedMedia fields, e.g. A, B and C, whether that means that you >>> have that CW in three different media, or if you have the CW in a >>> single medium that is defined as A+B+C. >>> / >>> >>> >>> She is referencing multiple instances of a property, however I believe >>> it is the same question for multiple types. >>> >>> It is an AND relationship. >>> >>> The turtle syntax is really helpful for envisioning multiple types: >>> <http://example.com/1234> >>> a schema:Audiobook, pto:Windows_Media_Audio, pto:Compact_Disk; >>> >>> Which can be unpacked as: >>> <http://example.com/1234> >>> a schema:Audiobook; >>> a pto:Windows_Media_Audio; >>> a pto:Compact_Disk; >>> >>> Which can be read as: >>> <http://example.com/1234> is the identifier for a thing which is >>> a Audiobook and, >>> a Windows_Media_Audio, and >>> a Compact_Disk >>> >>> If you want to describe something (an audio book) that is available in >>> several formats, you are describing relationships between different >>> things. >>> >>> Against my better judgement and dipping into FRBR language to explain >>> it.... >>> >>> You would have the description of an Expression, of type Audiobook, with >>> links to instances (Manifestations) for each format. Each instance would >>> be a combination of Audiobook and Compact_Disc; Audiobook and DVD; >>> Audiobook and Cassette; etc. >>> >>> Check out the examples library >>> A0<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A0> >>> (Expression) and its related instances (Manifestations) >>> A1<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A1> and >>> A3<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A1> to >>> see how this might be encoded. >>> >>> >>> >>> Moving on to how we encode multiple types for a thing there are a couple >>> of issues to address. >>> >>> Firstly, the differences between RDF (Turtle), RDFa, and Microdata. >>> >>> * RDF is the most obvious – as per the above example you just keep >>> adding type statements as required. >>> * RDFa add the type URI to the ‘typeof’ attribute: >>> >>> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" >>> typeof="Audiobook >>> http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>> >>> * Microdata is a little more difficult as the microdata standard does >>> not natively support multiple types. To overcome this limitation >>> Schema introduced the addtionalType property so that they could >>> encode this concept using microdata, thus: >>> >>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Audiobook"> >>> <link itemprop="additionalType" >>> href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>> >>> >>> The fact that the microdata solution uses additionalType as the property >>> name introduces the impression that the other type(s) are somehow >>> subordinate. Maybe it would have been better to have ‘alsoOfType’ as a >>> property name. >>> >>> The important effect of this approach is that there is no relevance in >>> the order of their declaration. For instance a librarian may describe >>> an audiobook on CD in microdata thus: >>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Audiobook"> >>> >>> <link itemprop="additionalType" >>> href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>> >>> >>> Whereas a retailer may describe the same thing as: >>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://www.productontology.org/id/Compact_Disk"> >>> >>> <link itemprop="additionalType" href=" http://schema.org/Audiobook"> >>> >>> These are both valid and equivalent to each other. >>> >>> >>> ~Richard >>> >>> >>> On 09/02/2013 20:09, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >>> >>> Owen, I take your point: additionalType seems to be sub-typing >>> CreativeWork, not adding information about the product. I vaguely >>> recall >>> having been warned about additionalType -- that it is not often >>> used and >>> seems to be tricky. Here's the definition of "aT": >>> >>> "An additional type for the item, typically used for adding more >>> specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax. >>> This is a >>> relationship between something and a class that the thing is in. >>> In RDFa >>> syntax, it is better to use the native RDFa syntax - the 'typeof' >>> attribute - for multiple types. Schema.org <http://Schema.org> >>> tools may have only weaker >>> understanding of extra types, in particular those defined externally." >>> >>> Richard posted this in an email: [1] >>> " >>> 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 >>> > >>> >>> First, I think that "/associatedMedia" in CreativeWork looks to be a >>> better fit for this. It is defined as: "The media objects that encode >>> this creative work. This property is a synonym for encodings." >>> >>> Second, it still isn't clear, however, if you have multiple >>> associatedMedia fields, e.g. A, B and C, whether that means that you >>> have that CW in three different media, or if you have the CW in a >>> single >>> medium that is defined as A+B+C. I believe that Richard's example >>> above >>> was the latter. You seem to be concerned about encoding the former. >>> Surely we need to be able to distinguish between them. I believe that >>> means moving toward item or offer-level description for the different >>> encodings. I can't think of any other way to make it clear. >>> >>> kc >>> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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 Wednesday, 13 February 2013 15:32:42 UTC