- From: LAURA DAWSON <ljndawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 21:10:35 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: "<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
I agree - I think this is an excellent approach. On Jul 1, 2013, at 8:02 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: > Karen, > > I think it's an interesting to imagine how a book retailer would model this using Schema.org. Then imagine that someone searches for a book via their favorite search engine and that a local library's "offer" appears in the same result list as the retailers. Where the retailer indicates price, the local library would indicate "free to borrow". Both would link to a service that closes the deal. > > Jeff > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:42 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> I started a page on holdings[1], but am at a "block" due to the need to decide exactly where holdings go in schema.org. There could be a "LibraryHoldings" class under schema.org/Library. It's a bit odd, but so far it seems like the most obvious place. >> >> There is the usual issue of needing a way to keep holdings statements for different copies together. I feel a bit reluctant to define a "copy" class since not all holdings statements refer to individual copies. However, "Holdings" often refers to a group of statements about individual copies... So the question is whether it's ok to have: >> >> LibraryHoldings >> shelfLocation >> callNumber >> LibraryHoldings >> shelfLocation >> callNumber >> >> or if it should be: >> >> Library Holdings >> Copy >> shelfLocation >> callNumber >> Copy >> shelfLocation >> callNumber >> >> or... something else altogether. In any case, the page has a start, and we can use the screen shots on which to base our examples. >> >> All suggestions welcome! >> >> kc >> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 01:11:04 UTC