- From: Laura Dawson <ljndawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:46:26 -0500
- To: Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org>, Jerry Persons <jpersons@stanford.edu>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CD49324C.1EA36%ljndawson@gmail.com>
Amazon does do this if you go to the individual book level. For Hilary Mantel's Bringing Up the Bodies, for example, if you go to the Kindle edition page, you see references to both the CD and the Audible version: http://www.amazon.com/Bring-Up-Bodies-Novel-ebook/dp/B00779MU6O/ From: Graham Bell <graham@editeur.org> Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:43 PM To: Jerry Persons <jpersons@stanford.edu> Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org> Subject: Re: AdditionalType was: audiobook options in objects Resent-From: <public-schemabibex@w3.org> Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:43:40 +0000 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; 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 <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> >>> 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> >>>>> <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 18:47:06 UTC