Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

Proposing that a Thing has an identifier property (expected type Identifier)
which being a sub-type of Thing – has the potential to lead you recursively
down a rabbit hole – something Gordon referenced in his comments.

Maybe, the description at least, would be simpler if renamed my concept
StandardIdentifier.

Yes I do need to work a little on my descriptive text - all suggestions
still welcome!

~Richard.

On 07/01/2013 06:30, "Shlomo Sanders" <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>
wrote:

> "So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the
> description of a [standard] identifier."
> 
> This seems convoluted and not KISS.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 22:12
> To: Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; 'Young,Jeff (OR)'; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
> Subject: Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
> 
> Hi Gordon,
> 
> As Karen mentions, Schema.org purposely avoids the strict definition of
> domains and ranges and (as I would put it) 'hopes' to find the Expected Type
> as a property but it is also acceptable to find a string representation.
> 
> The 'identifier' property I describe in the draft is stretching schema.org
> documentation style a little, by adding in an order of preference to the
> Expected Type.
> 
> You are correct that a URI could be an identifier but the meaning I was hoping
> for in this case was that the identifier in question would be a [Standard]
> Identifier.  Hence the examples of ISSN, ISNI, etc.
> 
> However I omitted the word 'standard' so as not to restrict the use to only
> identifiers produced by standards bodies.
> 
> So, in my draft I was intending the URI would identify (link to) the
> description of a [standard] identifier.
> 
> I perhaps need to work a little on my descriptive text - all suggestions
> welcome!
> 
> ~Richard.
> 
> 
> On 06/01/2013 18:01, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1/6/13 8:27 AM, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
>>> >> Richard
>>> >>
>>> >> In the Identifier proposal, the value of the schema.identifier
>>> >> property includes URIs.
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. Assuming that schema.org Type is a synonym for RDF Class (or am I
>>> >> wrong?), what does this mean for the range of the identifier? Is it a
>>> >> literal, as in the "urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039" example, or a class, as in
>>> >> the <examplelib.org/identifier/12345> example, which is an individual
>>> >> member of the class?
>> >
>> > I believe that schema.org is purposely avoiding the strict definition
>> > of domains and ranges. As it says in the documentation:
>> >
>> > "The decision to allow multiple domains and ranges was purely pragmatic.
>> > While the computational properties of systems with a single domain and
>> > range are easier to understand, in practice, this forces the creation
>> > of a lot of artifical types, which are there purely to act as the
>> > domain/range of some properties. "
>> >
>> > http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> 2. Using the example, is it not true to say in ttl:
>>> >>
>>> >> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema.identifier
>>> >> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> .?
>>> >>
>>> >> If so, <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> is both a schema.Book
>>> >> and a schema.Identifier Š
>> >
>> > If the two (schema.Book and schema.Identifier) are not disjoint, does
>> > it matter?
>> >
>> > kc
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers
>>> >>
>>> >> Gordon
>>> >>
>>> >> *From:*Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
>>> >> *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36
>>> >> *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>> >> *Cc:* Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>> >> *Subject:* Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi all,
>>> >>
>>> >> I have pulled some of our thoughts and discussions together into a
>>> >> couple of draft vocabulary proposals.  They can be found on the Wiki
>>> >> here: 
>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>.
>>> >>
>>> >> These are most definitely Œdraft¹ proposals and are there as a
>>> >> foundation for us to work on.
>>> >>
>>> >> I am not precious about any of the Type or Property names I have
>>> >> used, or any of the descriptive text either.  If you have better
>>> >> suggestions, dive in and share!
>>> >>
>>> >> I have included some example RDF ­ I will add some RDFa and possibly
>>> >> other format examples later.  I am holding off for a few days on
>>> >> this, as I am in discussion with the W3C hosting people about adding
>>> >> a syntax highlighting extension added to the Wiki which will make
>>> >> code examples far more readable.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>       Richard.
>>> >>
> 
> 
> 
>