Re: Holdings-as-Offer: wrap-up

Also, I haven't added availableAtOrFrom to the examples on the Holdings
proposal page because I was asking for consensus and providing sample
examples in this thread.

I am worried about this distinction you're introducing between branch and
library. To me, a branch is a library. The seller represents the current
physical location of the item (if that item is physical) where an
interested party can pick it up. I think search engines are trying to
satisfy an immediate need, not saying "oh it's available in NYPL somewhere".
On Oct 19, 2013 2:24 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Dan, I'm obviously having trouble explaining my point. Here's what I would
> add to the example:
>
>
>
>>   <div itemprop="offers" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/**Offer<http://schema.org/Offer>
>> ">
>>      <meta itemprop="businessFunction"
>> content="http://purl.org/**goodrelations/v1#LeaseOut<http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#LeaseOut>
>> ">
>>      <meta itemprop="seller" content="Example Branch 1</meta>
>>      <div>Call number: <span itemprop="inventoryIdentifier"**
>> >876.54</span></div>
>>      <div>Location: <span itemprop="availableAtOrFrom">**
>> Reference</span></div>
>>      <div>Item status: <span>
>>          <link itemprop="availability" href="http://schema.org/**
>> InStoreOnly <http://schema.org/InStoreOnly>">
>>          Library use only
>>      </span></div>
>>   </div>
>>
>
>
>  <div itemprop="offers" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/**Offer<http://schema.org/Offer>
> ">
>     <meta itemprop="businessFunction"
> content="http://purl.org/**goodrelations/v1#LeaseOut<http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#LeaseOut>
> ">
>     <meta itemprop="seller" content="http://sfpl.org"></**meta>
>     <div>Call number: <span itemprop="inventoryIdentifier"**
> >876.54</span></div>
>     <div>Location: <span itemprop="availableAtOrFrom">**
> Reference</span></div>
>     <div>Item status: <span>
>         <link itemprop="availability" href="http://schema.org/**
> InStoreOnly <http://schema.org/InStoreOnly>">
>         Library use only
>     </span></div>
>  </div>
>
> "Seller" becomes the library, not the location within the library, and not
> even the branch.
>
> I see a useful interplay between "seller" and "availableAtOrFrom". If we
> add "availableAtOrFrom" (which I don't see on the examples on the web page
> for the proposal, but it makes good sense here), then we have
> "availableAtOrFrom" for the displayed physical location, whatever it is.
> Seller then becomes something that identifies the library qua organization,
> and should be an organization, not a location (like "Reference" or even
> "West branch"). Seller and availableAtOrFrom might be the same, but that's
> not a problem. For most displays, though, I think that they would be
> different, since the holdings display doesn't usually contain the library
> name:
>
> (site is Berkeley Public Library Catalog)
> Location        Call no.        Status
> CENTRAL LIB     876.54          Check shelf
>
> Imagine how many libraries have a location called "MAIN" or "CENTRAL" --
> that's a location, not an organization. So you need to get the library
> organization name in there.
>
>  <div itemprop="offers" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/**Offer<http://schema.org/Offer>
> ">
>     <meta itemprop="businessFunction"
> content="http://purl.org/**goodrelations/v1#LeaseOut<http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#LeaseOut>
> ">
>     <meta itemprop="seller" content="Berkeley Public Library"></meta>
>   <!-- or ... content="http://**berkeleypubliclibrary.org<http://berkeleypubliclibrary.org>"
>  -->
>     <div>Call number: <span itemprop="inventoryIdentifier"**
> >876.54</span></div>
>     <div>Location: <span itemprop="availableAtOrFrom">**CENTRAL
> LIB</span></div>
>     <div>Item status: <span>
>         <link itemprop="availability" href="http://schema.org/**inStock<http://schema.org/inStock>
> ">
>         Check shelf
>     </span></div>
>  </div>
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> kc
>
>
>
>> I can include an example to cover this use case.
>>
>>  Another case is for electronic
>>> materials. Library systems handle this differently, but there isn't a
>>> location in many cases:
>>>
>>> Online    Click here
>>>
>>
>> Good question! What we do in Evergreen currently is essentially:
>>
>> <li property="offers" vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Offer">
>>    <a href="URL_FOR_ELECTRONIC_**MATERIAL">Available online</a>
>>    <link property="availability" href="http://schema.org/**OnlineOnly<http://schema.org/OnlineOnly>"
>> />
>>    ...
>> </li>
>>
>> Glancing at this, I think I need to add in a property="url" to the <a>
>> link there. And it certainly can have a <meta> tag for the "seller"
>> property as well. I can include some documentation and an example for
>> this use case, too.
>>
>>  I'm thinking that there are cases in which the library itself is not
>>> included in the holdings statement (or anywhere else on the page)
>>> because it
>>> is inherent in the context of the system being searched. So my question
>>> is
>>> whether there is value in including information about the library itself
>>> as
>>> a super-location to the holdings location, or is the assumption that this
>>> connection will be made through, e.g., the URL of the web page that has
>>> the
>>> markup?
>>>
>>
>> I think there is significant value to creating 1) a page per library
>> for a given system that contains the physical addresses / hours / etc,
>> even for single-library systems and 2) linking to that page
>> (explicitly, or implicitly via <meta>) from each of the associated
>> offers. It will enable the search engines to follow their nose based
>> on our assertions, rather than having to make assumptions about how
>> many libraries may inherently be represented by library.example.com.
>>
>>  I think my question leads to a broader one about the use case for library
>>> data in schema.org. When I look at product examples it is clear to me
>>> that
>>> the target is the URL of the product page. Is this also the assumption
>>> for
>>> library data in schema.org -- that we are expecting a search engine
>>> retrieval of a page for a library resource, and that page is the target
>>> of
>>> the search? If so, then that URL is all that is needed to link to the
>>> library and its resource. If, however, we anticipate other uses to be
>>> made
>>> of the schema mark-up, such as organizing retrieved items by geographical
>>> location, then we need to get that information into each web page. This
>>> may
>>> be unrelated to the markup of holdings, but it was this proposal that
>>> brought it to mind.
>>>
>>
>> Good question again. I see the primary use case being the search
>> engines ingesting a sitemap, crawling all of the listed pages, and
>> sorting out the items and linked offers accordingly.
>>
>> In the case of our library catalogue, I created a sitemap that lists
>> each of the record detail pages, which expose metadata & holdings.
>> Unfortunately, when I generated the sitemap last year, it was before I
>> had implemented holdings-as-offers; now that all of the attached
>> offers will be part of each record details page, I think a new crawl
>> of those pages could provoke much more interesting results.
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>