Re: Why we want to have separate Periodical and (Periodical)Issu(e|ance) types

On 11/21/13 5:42 PM, Dan Scott wrote:

>
> Yes, you have mentioned this a number of times now. As I said on the
> call, we're working with structured data. One benefit lies in being
> able to define Periodical as an entity in and of itself, then refer to
> it from the separate issues, instead of repeating the core Periodical
> information in each instance of an issue (and worse, in each instance
> of an article in each instance of a Periodical). If you refer to two
> separate issues of the same periodical on the same page, and you
> haven't broken Periodical out separately from Issue, then you have to
> repeat all that core Periodical information with slightly different
> volume / number / date information. You could determine that they're
> the same Periodical by comparing their ISSN and name, I suppose, but
> that seems like a very twisted and artificial way to achieve what
> should be a very basic operation.

I honestly don't see this as a mark-up use case. So I would like to see 
an example (preferably of a real web page) where this type of 
structuring would be used in the mark-up.

I do not see a problem with having some repetition in marking up a page 
like:

Le Boeuf, P. (2012). Foreword. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 
50(5-7), 355–359. doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.682001

MADISON, Olivia M.A. The origins of the IFLA study on Functional 
Requirements for Bibliographic Records. In: LE BŒUF, Patrick. Ed. 
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype, or 
Cure-All? . Binghamton, NY: the Haworth Press, 2005.

Le Boeuf, P. (2005).Musical Works in the FRBR Model or "Quasi la Stessa 
Cosa": Variations on a Theme by Umberto Eco. Cataloging & Classification 
Quarterly, 39(3-4), 103-124. doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.682001

Schmidt, R. (2012). Composing in Real Time: Jazz Performances as “Works” 
in the FRBR Model. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 
653–669. doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.68160

Are you saying that you feel a need to have "Cataloging & Classification 
Quarterly, 50(5-7)" coded in only a single entry on that page? I am 
assuming that each entry stands alone, and it needs to be marked up 
something like (and, yes, this is very pseudo-codey):

Article
   author "Le Boeuf, P."
   name "Foreward"
   Periodical
     name "Cataloging..."
     volume "50"
     issue "5-7"
   pages "355-359"
   id "doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.682001"

And in the case where the page represents an issue with, say, its table 
of contents, then:

Periodical
   name
   volume
   issue
   date
     Article1
       author...
     Article2
       author

Which tells me that we don't have a hierarchical structure between 
Periodical and Article, but have two things that can be used together in 
various ways. (This also helps the case where there is an article that 
is not associated with a periodical. One of the examples above is an 
article reprinted in a book.) The structure we need to address is that 
of the web page, which very well may be repetitive.

kc

>
> Someone else (sorry, I forget who) mentioned that structured data is
> meant for consumption by machines, not humans, which seemed to be part
> of your concern about this separation of Periodical and Issue. I think
> you had also expressed concern about the use case of the professor
> trying to mark up their list of publications who might get confused by
> the idea of an Issue as separate from a Periodical; my response to
> that was, yes, there is some sympathy for manually-generated markup,
> but the bulk of schema.org is expected to be generated by
> applications--so whoever is enabling the publication of schema.org is
> going to be expected to spend some wrapping their heads around the
> schemas. And Corey noted that applications are likely to be able to do
> more with the resulting data if it has more structure than if it is
> simply flattened.
>
> For me, it often comes down to a very basic sniff test. Is the idea of
> an issue of a periodical something that normal humans would recognize
> as being separate from the periodical itself? I think that, yes, most
> humans would pretty easily recognize and distinguish "The New York
> Times" as something that is published regularly from "last Sunday's
> edition of The New York Times" as a particular instance of.that
> publication--separate, but connected to the idea of the publication in
> general. That, in and of itself, is enough justification for me to
> want to reflect those separate entities in schema.org.
>

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

Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 14:53:39 UTC