RE: AdditionalType was: audiobook options in objects

In our first release of the WorldCat.org Linked Data, I used this custom
"library extension" property:

_:A0 
	library:hasCarrier http://purl.org/library/Audiobook;
	.

In the next release, I will be switching to this:

_:A0
	a http://www.productontology.org/id/Audiobook; 
	.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Persons [mailto:jpersons@stanford.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:30 PM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AdditionalType was: audiobook options in objects
> 
> RE:
> 
> > (amazon doesn't seem to
> >have audio books)
> 
> most often Amazon offeres them under the entry for the "book", not as
a
> separate "work"
> as in:  http://goo.gl/nX2XD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Dawson [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:37 AM
> To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AdditionalType was: audiobook options in objects
> 
> If this perspective helps.I 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,
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 Tuesday, 19 February 2013 18:38:54 UTC