- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:22:39 -0500
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAChbWaPcvxm=f6aJn+6e5T4XL=T36dSNgrWNYiPRW19iDim13Q@mail.gmail.com>
btw, when I say "bin". I mean a palletized shelf... I do recall when working at my branch that we did not use pallets for the consumer shelves. :) Our shelves were much smaller, but the principle stands. On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/> > -- -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 19:23:08 UTC