Re: Holdings

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Wallis,Richard
<Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> Following an action from the September meeting, I have updated the Holdings
> proposal <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_Offer>
> and put it out on this list for discussion.
>
> Background:  This proposal is based upon using the Schema Offer type to
> describe holdings information.  Only needing the addition of an
> 'inventoryIdentifier' property.  The proposal also builds upon the proposal
> to de-commercialise the Offer type (removing specific references to selling)
> put forward by Dan Scott.
>
>
> Comments requested ahead of agreement on this, and the proposing of of the
> new property - possibly by including it in the de-commercialising proposal.

One of the microdata & RDFa quirks that have tripped a number of
people up on public-vocabs is the application of two types to a single
item, and as this proposal relies heavily on that approach, I have
added a "Minimal example (RDFa)" section to the Holdings proposal that
shows the use of Book + Product at the same time. It also embeds an
Offer that links to the Product via the itemOffered property, and
shows the use of <link> and <meta> elements such that it should
provide a reasonable template for the copy-and-paste crowd. If
desired, it would be easy to provide the same example expressed as
microdata.

Note that I used "inventoryIdentifier" in the example to be consistent
with the updated proposal, although after all the discussion on this
thread I'm still not convinced that there's a strong case for adding a
new property. "sku" seems to be close enough to our intended purpose.
My one concern about using "sku" is if there was a realistic chance
that a given organization would want to surface both a call number and
a more traditional SKU, but I'm having a very difficult time imagining
that happening in the real world.

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 03:40:28 UTC