Re: Series

On 15/02/2013 18:02, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> I'm not finding a "collection" concept in schema.org -- that will be
> needed not only for series but for archival collections and even
> collections that are bibliographies (e.g. a page on a professor's web
> site of all of her publications). Maybe a broad "collection" concept
> would be a good place to start, with more specific types of collections
> coming later. CreativeWork could have an "inCollection" - that would
> work for art, music, etc.
There is a collection concept but is lurking below Webpage
<http://schema.org/CollectionPage>.

I remember some conversation about it being brought up to CreativeWork level
- maybe we should resurrect and sponsor that proposal.

~Richard



> On 2/15/13 9:14 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>> The Product Ontology includes several types of series:
>> 
>> http://www.productontology.org/id/Book_series
>> 
>> http://www.productontology.org/id/Film_series
>> 
>> More could be added by fixing up Wikipedia pages to represent them.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> *From:*Tom Morris [mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2013 11:38 AM
>> *To:* Graham Bell
>> *Cc:* Wallis,Richard; public-schemabibex@w3.org; Laura Dawson
>> *Subject:* Re: Series
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org
>> <mailto:graham@editeur.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>     Not just children's titles. Nested series -- and intersecting
>>     series, where one book is #7 in one series and #3 in another -- are
>>     reasonably common in scholarly monograph publishing.
>> 
>> I think it's useful to distinguish between series created by authors
>> (e.g. Dune) and series created by publisher (Great American Classics)
>> because they have very different characteristics.  Freebase calls these
>> two different things Literary Series
>> <http://www.freebase.com/view/book/literary_series> and Book Edition
>> Series <http://www.freebase.com/view/book/book_edition_series>
>> 
>>     And a single series might have multiple sequential orderings.
>>     Compare publication order with narrative order, for example (my
>>     usual example is /The Chronicles of Narnia/, where /Voyage of the
>>     Dawn Treader/ can be #3 or #5, but you could equally consider /Star
>>     Wars /or anything with a/'prequel'/). Again, films may have done
>>     this already.
>> 
>> Publication date sequencing can be computed using existing information,
>> so I think narrative sequence is the more important thing to capture.
>> 
>> Tom
>> 
>>     Graham
>> 
>>     EDItEUR
>> 
>>     On 15 Feb 2013, at 15:23, Laura Dawson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     That's a good idea, actually. One thing that concerned me initially
>>     was the fact that particularly with children's titles, series have
>>     series within series (it's a marketing thing - get a kid hooked on a
>>     series, and then start up a sub-series). We spent a lot of time
>>     grappling with this at Barnes & Noble.com <http://Noble.com>. But
>>     then I remembered Law & Order and CSI - and yeah, I bet the TV
>>     structure already has this covered.
>> 
>>     *From: *Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org
>>     <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>>
>>     *Date: *Friday, February 15, 2013 9:51 AM
>>     *To: *"public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>"
>>     <public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
>>     *Subject: *Series
>>     *Resent-From: *<public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>     <mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
>>     *Resent-Date: *Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:52:38 +0000
>> 
>>     Looking at the Google Knowledge Graph display for Dune Messiah
>>     <http://www.google.co.uk/#q=dune+messiah> reminds me that we need to
>>     address the issue of series.
>> 
>>     Do we follow the model of TVSeries and TVEpisode ­ at least we would
>>     not have to worry about a TVSeason equivalent ;-)
>> 
>>     Then of course there are serials, but I think we should hold off
>>     opening that can of worms until we have agreed some of the simpler
>>     stuff!
>> 
>>     ~Richard.
>>

Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 18:36:50 UTC