- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:14:08 -0700
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Thad, what you describe is exactly how libraries work. Each has a different barcode for their copies regardless of whether it's a separate library or a branch in a system. They also have a different barcode for each copy of the same book/DVD/CD in that library. That's because the barcode is at the physical copy level. "Item" in this case really does mean "instance" not "product." I agree that IndivudualProduct has this same sense. And that's where serialNumber is coming from. Serial number ~= library use of barcode. Where we're stuck is on the other useful number, the shelf number. I don't know of anything equivalent in schema... but admit that schema has a lot of properties and there might be one that fits this case. kc On 10/15/13 11:48 AM, Thad Guidry wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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> > <mailto: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> > <mailto: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 <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 > <http://schema.org/inventoryIdentifier>>__? I'm keen on finding > out how it differs > substantially from schema.org/sku > <http://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> <http://schema.org> 1.0d was > released and the changes > > were just there! > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> > http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> <tel: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 <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 19:14:38 UTC