- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:26:29 +0000
- To: "<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
I don't think we should assume that branch names are structured. I checked out a book yesterday at "The Arcanaeum", which is a branch of "The College of Winterhold Library System". Sent from my iPad > On Oct 19, 2013, at 4:17 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > Jeff, I'm trying to make a more practical argument, which is that without the name of the library, the branch name isn't meaningful. I don't think we can decide what is a proper seller v. location, but if the locations aren't meaningful alone, then we need the library name. > > kc > >> On 10/19/13 12:59 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: >> Schema.org <http://Schema.org> has a branchOf property that probably has >> a role to play sorting this out. >> >> I would argue that a "library system" like NYPL (in general) is more >> like an administrative agency than it is an agency where books are being >> circulated. The fact that the word "library" appears in the name >> shouldn't be a huge problem for search engines if the data publishers >> are careful. >> >> Jeff >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Oct 19, 2013, at 3:08 PM, "Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com >> <mailto:denials@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> <mailto: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 <http://library.example.com>. >>> >>> I think my question leads to a broader one about the use >>> case for library >>> data in schema.org <http://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 <http://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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >>> skype: kcoylenet >>> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet >
Received on Saturday, 19 October 2013 20:27:01 UTC