- From: Corey A Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:57:34 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAE4UJ7Wi2kXF8fA3_VURHRcrq1gSK+q9N_=bUg+nQ-vHz4mSTg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Karen, Can you say a bit more about "I'm not convinced, having looked at some of the pages, that WP shares the conceptual model that we'll find in our data."? I'm not sure I understand what problems you foresee, nor what you believe the ramifications of those problems to be. I struggle with the idea that "..we then need to develop some best practices for library data, knowing that non-library data will take its own direction." I'm rather averse to maintaining our own little, non-conforming corner of the Web without a really clear understanding of the impact--on users--of this perceived conceptual incompatibility. Thanks, -Corey On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Yes, Jeff, I realize that. I had rather hoped for a link that you had > found useful for books, like: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Category:Books_by_type<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_type> > > Naturally, this is a mish-mosh of physical types (paperback), product > types (mass-market paperback), genres (airport novel) and topics (book > size). I don't know if there is a better approach within WP. > > While it is great that these Wikipedia pages exist, I think before using > them we should look beyond their titles to the content of the pages to make > sure that WP and our metadata are talking about the same thing. I'm not > convinced, having looked at some of the pages, that WP shares the > conceptual model that we'll find in our data. With that as a starting > point, we then need to develop some best practices for library data, > knowing that non-library data will take its own direction. > > I would like to hear from anyone in the publishing community about their > needs for specification of product types. I assume that the preferred list > would original in ONIX. > > kc > > > On 7/5/13 8:50 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > >> You can think of the option like this: Anything in Wikipedia can be >> treated as an owl:Class by changing the URI prefix. For example, this >> Wikipedia page describes murals: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Mural <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mural> >> >> In contrast, you can say something *is* a mural by using this hacked URI >> in an rdf:type: >> >> http://www.productontology.**org/id/Mural<http://www.productontology.org/id/Mural> >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 5, 2013, at 11:42 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> 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 >>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Note that schema.org <http://schema.org> has >>>>> >>>>> http://schema.org/**BookFormatType <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/<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> >>>>>> <mailto:rxs@talis.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:25 AM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org >>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>>> <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<weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@**gmail.com <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> >>>>>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>>>> <http://arxiv.org/> are just like I >>>>>>>>>> mentioned in archive.org <http://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<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<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<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> >>>>>>>>>> <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 >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@**gmail.com <weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.**blogspot.com/<http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/> >>>>>>>>>> *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/**FirstThus<https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus> >>>>>>>>>> *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* >>>>>>>>>> http://sites.google.com/site/**opencatalogingrules/<http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/> >>>>>>>>>> *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* >>>>>>>>>> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/**cataloging-matters-podcasts.** >>>>>>>>>> html<http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Karen Coyle >>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >>>>> >>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>>>> skype: kcoylenet >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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 > > -- Corey A Harper Metadata Services Librarian New York University Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10003-7112 212.998.2479 corey.harper@nyu.edu
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 17:58:02 UTC