Re: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals

Is the Bookwire page not a description of the book (that happens to have
that isbn allocated to it) not a description of the number itself?
~Richard.

On 16/01/2013 16:56, "Laura Dawson" <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> We do, actually - we just make a different URL available publicly for SEO
> purposes. It's not on Bowker.com - it's on a site called Bookwire.
> 
> http://www.bookwire.com/9780985887025 is an example. It's an alias for
> http://www.bookwire.com/The-Twelve-9780985887025.html.
> 
> 
> On 1/16/13 11:49 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
>> I admit that I always have trouble with the re-working of ontologies to
>> new uses (like using dcterms:title for a person's name, which is legit
>> but always rubs me the wrong way). In the SKOS case, I just can't see an
>> identifier as a skos:concept. Also, if Bowker *did* provide a URI for
>> ISBNs (and I think that's being discussed but is not yet realized) then
>> I see no need for the identifier structure in schema. It is needed for
>> those instances where there is no URI. (But, Jeff, maybe that's just an
>> artifact of your example?)
>> 
>> kc
>> 
>> On 1/15/13 11:07 PM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>>> I looked at both. They seem to be equivalent with the SKOS being cleaner
>>> and also based on only one new construct: SKOS.
>>> Personally, I think the name attribute in the SKOS is a misleading
>>> attribute label for at text key value.
>>> If I had to choose between name and prefLabel I would prefer the latter
>>> (though that is also misleading too but better than name).
>>> How does this work for?
>>> schema:identifier <urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039>;
>>> In the SKOS part itself, is the do the inSchema and focus need to be
>>> working URIs with something behind it?
>>> <http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430>
>>>      a skos:Concept;
>>>      schema:name "9780553479430";
>>>      schema:inScheme <http://bowker.com/concept-scheme/isbn> ;
>>>      schema:focus <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520>.
>>> Shlomo
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 20:05
>>> To: Shlomo Sanders; Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>> Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>> There was some discussion of Richard's Identifier Proposal during
>>> today's call, so I wanted to clarify my comments.
>>> My observation was that the key patterns in Richard's "Identifier
>>> Proposal" mirror patterns found in SKOS. I added a section to the
>>> proposal so they can be compared side-by-side:
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Proposal
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Alternate_Propose
>>> d_based_on_SKOS
>>> If Schema.org adopts the essence of SKOS (which they should if they're
>>> serious about wanting to externalize lists), then Richard's Proposal can
>>> be modeled as a specialization of that:
>>> schema:Identifier rdfs:subClassOf schema:Concept .
>>> schema:inStandard rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:inScheme .
>>> schema:identifies rdfs:subPropertyOf schema:focus .
>>> I'm skeptical that Schema.org will care about explicitly modeling
>>> "identifiers for identifiers" like this, but I won't object if the group
>>> wants to try.
>>> Jeff
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Shlomo Sanders [mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:30 AM
>>>> To: Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle; Gordon Dunsire
>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org; Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane
>>>> Subject: RE: Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals
>>>> 
>>>> "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
>>>> <mailto: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]
>>>> <mailto:[mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]>
>>>>>> *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36
>>>>>> *To:*public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto: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.
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:04:39 UTC