Re: Holdings

Thad, the library barcodes are on individual physical items -- each book 
in each library -- not on the product. Two copies of the same book each 
get different barcodes. This is different from how "items" are treated 
in stores, which is that the "item" (e.g. distinct product) gets an sku, 
and then the inventory says how many of those are on hand. Because 
libraries lend items, and those items return, the library concept of 
"item" is more specific than the warehouse concept of item (which is a 
product that may exist in more than one exemplar).

In fact, this makes SKU analogous to the shelf number, but only in a 
superficial way. Shelf number does indicate a particular product but its 
main function is relative location and place in a classification of 
knowledge.

kc

On 10/15/13 11:04 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> Your library barcodes will be SKUs in Schema.org
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dan, your argument makes sense, however in actual libraries
>     inventory is done with barcodes - that is, that is how libraries
>     count what they have. And inventory # has to be 1:1 with things
>     owned. So maybe the issue is that we don't want to use the term
>     "inventory identifier" for call numbers because it will confuse
>     those who use the barcode to do their inventory.
>
>     This means that we are still lacking a term for the call
>     number/shelf number. Part of the complication is that the shelf
>     number has a locating function, but the location is relative, not
>     fixed. Another part of the complication is that it's not just a
>     location, it's an indication of the subject matter.
>
>     I think getting the idea of location into the name or the definition
>     would be helpful. Lacking that, bringing out the classification
>     aspect might speak to potential users.
>
>     kc
>
>
>     On 10/15/13 10:34 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>         On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>         <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>             Thanks, Richard. Personally, I would switch
>             inventoryIdentifier and
>             serialNumber -- the barcode on the book is the inventory
>             identifier. Serial
>             number works just as well for either, so it could be the
>             call number.
>
>
>         I still think that's the wrong way around. This is not "serial
>         number
>         as in ISSN", but "serial number as in uniquely identifies a single
>         item". barcode is a much, much better fit for
>         schema.org/serialNumber <http://schema.org/serialNumber>
>         in my opinion, as while we have established that some libraries use
>         the same call number for multiple copies of a given item, I don't
>         think there are any libraries that use the same barcode more than
>         once.
>
>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Serial_number
>         <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_number> says "A serial
>         number (also
>         manufacturer's serial number or MSN) is a unique code assigned for
>         identification of a single unit. Although usually called a
>         number, it
>         may include letters, though ending with digits. Typically serial
>         numbers of a production run are incremented by one, or another fixed
>         difference, from one unit to the next." That last bit also sounds an
>         awful lot like how barcodes are typically generated, and not at all
>         how call numbers are assigned (accession numbers, sure, but that's a
>         different beast).
>
>         Richard, do you have a proposed definition for
>         schema.org/inventoryIdentifier
>         <http://schema.org/inventoryIdentifier>__? I'm keen on finding
>         out how it differs
>         substantially from schema.org/sku <http://schema.org/sku>.
>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Sku
>         <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sku>
>         uses the definition: "a unique identifier for each distinct product
>         and service that can be purchased in business"; that's pretty
>         close to
>         what I would think of as an inventory identifier. If we're going to
>         argue for the addition of a new property, it's going to need to be
>         convincingly different!
>
>             Other than that, I think this is good to go, but we never
>             got a definitive
>             answer about de-commercializing the definitions, did we?
>             However, we also
>             got only positive responses, as I recall.
>
>
>         Yes, there seems to be a limited attention span on public-vocabs
>         and I
>         think most of that attention recently has been gobbled up by
>         SKOS and
>         to a lesser extent the accessibility proposal... but like you I
>         don't
>         recall any opposition to the notion. I wouldn't be surprised if
>         schema.org <http://schema.org> 1.0d was released and the changes
>         were just there!
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
>
> --
> -Thad
> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>

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

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 18:38:20 UTC