Re: Holdings - was Re: Some additions to wiki

Would not 'sku' in http://schema.org/Offer serve this purpose.

I'm thinking of a CreativeWork for the bib stuff, and SomeProducts for the
manifestation level stuff linked using Offer to a Library - the offer sku
providing somewhere for [what us library folks call] the call number and
businessFunction for the types of things you can do with the item in
question.

~Richard.

On 14/01/2013 13:23, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Richard, I agree that "holdings" is hard to model as a thing. "Name" for
> the organization is already included, as is location of the
> organization. So far there is no "location" for the individual product
> ("call number" in libraries) since other businesses do not provide
> locations for individual items. In fact, there is very little item-level
> information so far in schema. Libraries will need that for call number
> (which is supposed to be unique within the library and to provide a
> single place for each book -- although this isn't followed 100% in all
> libraries), and the availability of individual items. So perhaps what we
> should model is an item level.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 1/14/13 2:06 AM, Richard Wallis 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 13:50:35 UTC