Holdings in schema.org (was: Kill the Record!)

Could we turn this into a useful discussion and take a look at:

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings

Although there may be other purposes to schema.org mark-up, it might be 
good to address ILS holdings displays before moving on to other 
potential uses.

kc

On 7/5/13 7:25 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Note that Schema.org <http://Schema.org> already has a mechanism to
> indicate "Item" in the FRBR sense: schema:IndividualProduct. If you want
> to relate those items to an abstraction that is analogous to FRBR
> Manifestation, you can use schema:model to link to a schema:ProductModel.
>
> Aside, I would argue that the defining characteristic of Item is that it
> has "location". For physical items that location can be determined by
> geolocation (for example). For Web items (aka Web documents), the
> location can be determined by its URL.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com
> <mailto:rxs@talis.com>> wrote:
>
>> But this all really how many angels can fit on the head of a pin,
>> isn't it?
>>
>> We've already established that we're not interested in defining any
>> strict interpretation of FRBR in schema.org <http://schema.org>: we're
>> just trying to define a way to describe things in HTML that computers
>> can parse.
>>
>> Yes, I think we need to establish what an item is, no I don't think we
>> have to use FRBR as a strict guide.
>>
>> -Ross.
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:51 AM, James Weinheimer
>> <weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/07/2013 13:30, Ross Singer wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I guess I don't understand why offering epub, pdf, and html versions
>>>> of the same resource doesn't constitute "items".
>>>>
>>>> If you look at an article in arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org/>, for
>>>> example, where else in WEMI would you put the available file formats?
>>>>
>>>> Basically, format should be tied to the item, although for physical
>>>> items, any manifestation's item will generally be the same format
>>>> (although I don't see why a scan of a paperback would become a new
>>>> endeavor, honestly).
>>>>
>>>> In the end, I don't see how digital is any different than print in
>>>> this regard.
>>>>
>>> </snip>
>>>
>>> Because manifestations are defined by their format (among other
>>> things). Therefore, a movie of, e.g. Moby Dick that is a
>>> videocassette is considered to be a different manifestation from that
>>> of a DVD. Each one is described separately. So, if you have multiple
>>> copies of the same format for the same content those are called
>>> copies. But if you have different formats for the same content, those
>>> are different manifestations.
>>>
>>> The examples in arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org> are just like I
>>> mentioned in archive.org <http://archive.org> and they follow a
>>> different sort of structure. You do not see this in a library
>>> catalog, where each format will get a different manifestation, so
>>> that each format can be described.
>>>
>>> As a result, things work quite differently. Look for e.g. Moby Dick
>>> in Worldcat, and you will see all kinds of formats available in the
>>> left-hand column.
>>> https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=moby+dick
>>>
>>> When you click on an individual record,
>>> http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62208367 you will see where all of the
>>> copies of this particular format of this particular expression are
>>> located. This is the manifestation. And its purpose is to organize
>>> all of the *copies*, as is done here.
>>>
>>> In the IA, we see something different:
>>> http://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale02melvuoft, where this
>>> display brings together the different manifestations: pdf, text, etc.
>>> There is no corresponding concept in FRBR for what we see in the
>>> Internet Archive, or in arxiv.org <http://arxiv.org>.
>>>
>>> I am not complaining or finding fault, but what I am saying is that
>>> the primary reason this sort of thing works for digital materials is
>>> because there are no real "duplicates". (There are other serious
>>> problems that I won't mention here) In my opinion, introducing the
>>> Internet Archive-type structure into a library-type catalog based on
>>> physical materials with multitudes of copies would result in a
>>> completely incoherent hash.
>>>
>>> This is why I am saying that FRBR does not translate well to digital
>>> materials on the internet.
>>>
>>> Getting rid of the concept of the "record" has been the supposed
>>> remedy, but it seems to me that the final result (i.e. what the user
>>> will experience) will still be the incoherent mash I mentioned above:
>>> where innumerable items and multiple manifestations will be mashed
>>> together. Perhaps somebody could come up with a way to make this
>>> coherent and useful, but I have never seen anything like it and
>>> cannot imagine how it could work.
>>> --
>>> *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
>>> *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
>>> *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
>>> *Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
>>> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
>>> *Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
>>> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 14:42:11 UTC