- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:56:02 +0000
- To: Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>, Laura Dawson <ljndawson@gmail.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
As I said in the initial proposal, if there is not a URI available we can fall-back to the default Schema capability to accept a text type for any property. Theoretically I imagine that a urn could be used as a compromise between a text string and a URI - not sure how much it would mean to most people out on the web though. ~Richard. On 16/01/2013 17:51, "Shlomo Sanders" <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com> wrote: > Can we get back what to about an identifier like urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039 where > there is no URI? > > Thanks, > Shlomo > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 19:37, "Laura Dawson" <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Seems like it would be pretty easy to set this up. I'll put it on the >> roadmap - and ignore the lectures from the development team about how I'm >> not paying attention to revenue-producing projects. >> >> On 1/16/13 12:27 PM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote: >> >>> Description of an isbn: >>> name (characters that make up the number): 093738318X >>> type (the numbering scheme it is in): ISBN >>> issuing authority: Bowker >>> issue date: 1997 >>> assigned to: http://www.bookwire.com/9780985887025 >>> >>> OR using the SKOS proposal: >>> >>> <http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430> >>> a skos:Concept; >>> schema:name "093738318X"; >>> schema:inScheme <http://bowker.com/concept-scheme/isbn> ; >>> schema:focus <http://www.bookwire.com/9780985887025>. >>> >>> Markup of the concept-scheme could, in this model, provide information >>> about >>> the issuing authority. Not sure yet how I would map the issue date >>> property >>> >>> ~Richard. >>> >>> On 16/01/2013 17:14, "Laura Dawson" <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Good point. >>>> >>>> When you say "description of the number" - could you give an example? >>>> >>>> On 1/16/13 12:03 PM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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_Pro >>>>>>>> po >>>>>>>> se >>>>>>>> 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 18:57:10 UTC