Re: Holdings-as-Offer: wrap-up

+1 to availableAtOrFrom

And a side note... several ILS's also seem to acknowledge that you can
"group" or "cluster" a set of locations inside a building or buildings.
 Evergreen and others have this in their DB schema, but I do not know if
Libraries take advantage of it much.. Like saying "Kids" or just the idea
of "non Adult" for noting the left side of a library where Teens, Young
Adult, Toddler books are all kept, versus the right side of library where
Adult books are kept and shelved.  Some libraries that are multi-building
probably take advantage of this kind of schema even more.  More sq. footage
= more options for them. :)

Evergreen ILS uses the notion of a "copy_location_group"
http://docs.evergreen-ils.org/2.4/schema/_schema_asset.html   so...

Place->containedIn->Place is still a fairly good fit for those that want to
take advantage of grouping or clustering...a concept that explains the area
of a building where a particular shelf is located... i.e. a "cluster",
"area", "group" or "copy_location_group"...same thing.

Throwing it out there as food for thought for those still in the library
world.



On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all:
>
> Thanks so much for your patience and contributions over the past few
> months on the Holdings-as-Offer recommended usage document at
> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings_via_Offer
>
> I spent some time after our call yesterday tweaking the document to
> better reflect some of our rationale for the property mappings that
> came up during our discussions (both on list and via calls). My hope
> is that the target audience will be able to efficiently follow the
> "What? That's weird... Oh, I get it!" path that we've travelled to
> arrive here. (Okay, I admit, future-me is likely part of that target
> audience.)
>
> I've added suggested mappings for various item statuses that had until
> now been buried in the examples, so we can support both the
> likes-to-read-the-doc and the quick-copy-and-paste audience.
>
> But I do have one last question. The rationale I gave for marking up
> "Shelving location" as "description" rather than "availableAtOrFrom"
> as the range of the latter property is "Place", and as a shelving
> location is really just a subsection of a Place, we would need to use
> the Place->containedIn->Place if we wanted to be formal about the
> markup.
>
> However, I'm now thinking that we should relax, take advantage of
> schema.org's pragmatic nature here, and go with "availableAtOrFrom"
> anyway, with the expectation that most of the time it will simply be a
> Text value like "Stacks", "3rd floor - Reference", or "Kids", while
> still supporting the formal range of Place. The advantage of
> "availableAtOrFrom" is that it would give the attribute a tighter
> scope than "description" and processors would be able to glean more
> meaning when they run across it.
>
> +1 / -1 to recommending "availableAtOrFrom" as a mapping for "shelving
> location"?
>
>


-- 
-Thad
Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>