Re: Holdings

Depends on your context and viewpoint.

Your thinking that all 3 of my branch libraries are the same company.

I was thinking and treating all 3 of my branch libraries as competitors...
like Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and Abebooks.

Each of the 3 competitors all sell copies of "Gone with the Wind"...but
each one has a different SKU for the inventory system.

In libraries, the inventory system handles data for all 3 + whatever
branches or university annexes.  A library system would be equivalent to 1
of those competitors.

My opinion at this point ?  Just EXTEND Schema.org in that direction that
you need, specific for Libraries around the world.

Schema.org/Product is where you land... then just extend off that for now
for all your holdings needs around a specific Item.. or in Schema.org
terms.. a http://schema.org/IndividualProduct





On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 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<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>
>>
>>         <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<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>
>>
>>         <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<http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>> >
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/**thadguidry/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>> >
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 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/>