- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:20:51 -0500
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAChbWaNoi381egaipLjhrqhBLd=rpQKqMFquYioxnPAh1aX_aw@mail.gmail.com>
Shelf number is similar to warehousing and inventory principles of a "bin" which is a specific location on a shelf and rack. We do not have any of those Properties in Schema.org...probably should however, but that is more and more into physical inventory management....a long tail domain that Martin has explored but only under the covers on his own, I'm afraid.... so.. Just extend Schema.org and add "bin" "shelf", etc....as a custom property under where you see it fitting most appropriately... then make the proposal for that one as well. On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > 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<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<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> >> > >> >> >> <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<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> >> > >> >> >> <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> >> <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/> >> >> <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<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/>
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 19:21:20 UTC