Re: Reminder - next Schema Bib Extend Group meeting is on Tuesday

Where I was [additionalType] coming from is that the properties you refer to
may well already be available (probably under a different name) in some of
the Product derived types.

I think we can take advantage of the work that has been put into identifying
where items are available to rent/purchase in the commercial world.

We 'may' be able to achieve our ends by combining one or more of the Product
Types with a CreativeWork type.  I believe, from some discussion about
content-carrier, that we don't yet have a consensus around this approach of
combining types.

BTW You under estimate the importance for any source of [library] bib data
to publish holding information by your comment about WorldCat.  The basic
point about publishing structured data, in a form that the search engines
commit to supporting, is so that users can discover what they need and where
they can get it from.  Both individual libraries and aggregations have key
parts to play in identifying a network of places where they can get, or gain
access to, the resources they need.

Anyway - lets discuss on Tuesday.

~Richard.



On 16/02/2013 16:10, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Richard, I don't see any relationship between content/carrier and
> holdings. My view of holdings is to mark up the elements that are common
> to library holdings displays:
> 
> location
> call number
> availability
> 
> Then there is the question of serial holdings, which for the moment we
> may need to treat simply as a display of "owns" which is already in the
> Organization schema.
> 
> I see this as a fairly simple markup for starters, although more could
> be added later.
> 
> I realize that holdings may not seem terribly relevant to OCLC since
> WorldCat outsources that to the individual library catalogs that it
> points to, but for most libraries I would contend that holdings is the
> KEY information that they have to offer. I think it should be moved up
> in our priority list.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 2/16/13 7:45 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>> Karen,
>> 
>> As the discussions on work-instance & commonEndeavor have past its peak
>> recently, I agree that we should try to move on.
>> 
>> In the spirit of "iterative approach to helping make schema.org better for
>> bibliographic data -- instead of a waterfall model" as suggested by Ed
>> recently - I believe that they should be moved to a state of final agreement
>> and preparation for proposal to public-vocabs.
>> 
>> Content-carrier is a little different as there are some fundamental
>> modelling approaches that we are discussing here that I think will influence
>> how we deal with holdings - if we are to be consistent. What might be called
>> the additionalType issue needs some consensus around it.
>> 
>> By taking some leads from WebPage, Comics, etc., I agree that collection
>> 'should' not be too controversial.
>> 
>> It is issues such as these I was hoping to surface in the ' Timescale for
>> submissions to public_vocabs' agenda item.
>> 
>> ~Richard.
>> 
>> On 16/02/2013 14:50, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I looked at the agenda, and I would like to suggest putting
>>> work-instance, commonEndeavor, and content-carrier on the back burner,
>>> but add Library Holdings, which I think is one of the key bits of
>>> missing information that we need to address. I also want to say that I
>>> think that "collection" is a no-brainer and we shouldn't have to spend
>>> much time on it.
>>> 
>>> kc
>>> 
>>> On 2/15/13 6:29 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>      Just a reminder that our February meeting is on Tuesday, usual time,
>>>>      joining details here:
>>>> 
>>>>      _http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219
>>>>      _
>>>>      Hear you there.
>>>> 
>>>>      ~Richard.
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:02:34 UTC