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

I think Ross, Jim, and Jeff are trying to expand the idea beyond the
traditional library structure (which is good).  However, I think your
examples are spot on to show that this condition also exists with web
resources (i.e. Jeff's comments that a "branch location" may be a URL
or a portal).
Tom 

	Tom Adamich, MLS 

	President 

	Visiting Librarian Service 

	P.O. Box 932 

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663 

	330-364-4410 

	vls@tusco.net [1] 

----- Original Message -----
From: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
To:
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:41:40 -0700
Subject: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  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"  > 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 : 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
 >>  wrote:
 >>
 >>> On 05/07/2013 13:30, Ross Singer wrote:
 >>> 
 >>>>
 >>>> 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 , 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.
 >>>>
 >>> 
 >>>
 >>> 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  are just like I
 >>> mentioned in 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 .
 >>>
 >>> 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.blogspotcom/
 >>> *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

-------------------------
Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

Links:
------
[1] mailto:vls@tusco.net