Re: AdditionalType was: audiobook options in objects

I haven't checked a big selection of audio products recently, but it's likely that the audiobooks simply never get seen because they rank low on the default ordering of search results. By creating 'works' -- clusters of ISBNs created by matching title, author names etc -- they improve the visibility of the CD-audio versions.

And of course Audible is Amazon-owned, and offers downloadable audio.

Graham




Graham Bell
EDItEUR

Tel: +44 20 7503 6418

EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road, London N7 9DP, UK. Website: http://www.editeur.org





On 19 Feb 2013, at 18:29, Jerry Persons wrote:

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<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>; public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://audible.com> and audiobooks.com<http://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> <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>
<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> <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:03, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET<mailto: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>
<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> <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> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet



--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet