- From: Adrian Pohl <pohl@hbz-nrw.de>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:41:38 +0100
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
I agree with Richard in that we don't need an extra entity for holding. As I understand it, a holding is a CreativeWork that can be accessed via a library's service (loan, reading room, ILL). In other words, a holding is a resource that is part of a library collection. Thus, a decription of a holding doesn't differ much from a description of an instance in a private collection (like e.g. on LibraryThing), only to the regard that the collection or service it might be linked to belongs to an institution that is classified as a library. As a consequence, I think there is no need to use the term "holding" at all in our data modeling efforts. (In German, we don't have a corresponding term to "a holding" - as an individual - at all but only for the set of all the holdings of a library ('Bestand'). As even in natural languages you don't have a problem with leaving out this concept, we probably can omit this one without any problems.) All the best Adrian >>> On 14.1.2013 at 11:06, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote: > Hi Karen, > > Holdings is a difficult one. I have trouble in justifying, in data modelling > terms, its existence as an an entity. Here is most of an email, in another > thread I am in, on the subject. > >> I still remain to be convinced that a Holding is a thing to be modelled as > an >> entity in its own right. >> >> Surely the realisation of a holding is just the relationship between a thing >> (Book, Journal, License to access) and a location (Shelf, Library, >> Institution). Its not a thing or a concept. >> >> Schema, which would probably best describe an item the union between a >> CreativeWork and a Product. The SomeProducts[1] subtype of Product has the >> inventoryLevel property. That's what holdings are, a count of the number of >> items at a location. >> >> Trying to model, the phantom echo of performance enabling RDBMS >> denormalization in to a table called Holdings, is definitely a bad idea. >> >> My couple of cents.. > > I believe that those outside of the library domain have equal difficulty in > understanding too. I know this might be a radical suggestion as holdings > have been key to water-cooler discussions in libraries for decades. > However my linked data background has taught me to model the real things in > the real world, and I am yet to meet or pick up a holding. > > ~Richard. > > > > On 13/01/2013 15:02, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> I wasn't quite sure where this went, but I added two objects to the >> object-type page [1]: >> >> - the "library" object that is under localBusiness >> - a new "library holdings" type. >> >> In each I put in some text about some new properties that might be needed. >> >> I also have beefed up the commonEndeavor HTML example. [2] If you wrap >> <html> around it is does actually display, although it's not very >> attractive. Just pretend that there's some nice CSS involved that fixes >> that. >> >> kc >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Object_Types >> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 10:42:33 UTC