- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:26:27 +0000
- To: "<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
True. This list has always seemed simplistic to me, though. As you've suggested, EBook in particular deserves to be treated as a class so more detailed properties can be included. The other two are just the tip if the iceberg. Sent from my iPad On Jul 5, 2013, at 11:20 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Note that schema.org has http://schema.org/BookFormatType, which has > > Ebook > Hardback > Paperback > > kc > > On 7/5/13 7:43 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: >> For paperbacks and similar things, I've started using Product Ontology >> to tag the item/manifestation descriptions for example: >> >> @prefix schema: <http://schema.org/> . >> @prefix pto: <http://www.productontology.org/id/> . >> >> :book1 >> a schema:Book, schema:ProductModel, pto:Paperback ; >> etc. >> >> The coverage isn't perfect, but it has the advantage of being backed up >> by Wikipedia. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:35 AM, "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com >> <mailto:rxs@talis.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:25 AM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org >>> <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> I would say there are arguably more defining characteristics than that >>> (I'm still going to argue that "paperback" isn't actually a part of >>> the manifestation, simply an inference of the sum of the format of the >>> items), but this, I would argue, is definitely the least common >>> denominator and applies well for our entity model in schema.org >>> <http://schema.org>. >>> >>> -Ross. >>> >>>> >>>> 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 15:26:59 UTC