- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 08:41:34 -0700
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
What are the options provided by productontology? kc On 7/5/13 8:26 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > -- 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 15:42:03 UTC