- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0500
- To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
I don't think we should limit our thinking to what vendors do today. Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:03 PM > To: public-schemabibex@w3.org > Subject: Re: AdditionalType was: audiobook options in objects > > 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/A > >>>>>>> 0> > >>>>>>> (Expression) and its related instances (Manifestations) > >>>>>>> > A1<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A > >>>>>>> 1> > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> > A3<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A > >>>>>>> 1> > >>>>>>> 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 18:32:50 UTC