- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:03:12 -0600
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
So for our schema.org work, do we just concentrate on what shows on the html displays? I guess we have no choice, eh? kc On 2/13/13 10:51 AM, Laura Dawson wrote: > LOL! > > There isn't. And I think this is going to be true for most retail sites > with search functions - the search is IP that the retailer's not going to > share due to competitive issues. I'm intimately familiar with Audible's > and Barnes & Noble's, because I worked pretty strenuously on those; also > Muze/Rovi's, which is a white-label book database that is heavily fielded > for faceted search. One thing we're going to have to contend with is the > reluctance of retailers to display everything they ingest - they may USE > it, as Audible does for Endeca's purposes, but they won't SHOW it. > > > On 2/13/13 11:43 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> Laura, what displays on the screen seems pretty minimal -- do you know a >> way to see a "fuller record"?* >> >> kc >> * "fuller record" is common cataloging talk, but always makes me think >> "brush man" >> >> On 2/13/13 10:37 AM, Laura Dawson wrote: >>> If this perspective helpsŠI developed Audible's taxonomies in 2006 (so >>> they could use them with Endeca) and I don't see that they've strayed >>> much >>> from it. It's very ONIXy, I guess is what I'm saying. >>> >>> On 2/13/13 10:32 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >>> >>>> 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, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I¹ve pulled this out of the audiobook thread as I think it is >>>>>>> generally >>>>>>> applicable to several areas of our discussions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Karen¹s 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 Karen¹s 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 Œtypeof¹ 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 ŒalsoOfType¹ >>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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 Wednesday, 13 February 2013 17:03:42 UTC