- From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:46 -0500
- To: Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com> wrote: > Isn't a scholarly article Peer Reviewed which not something a regular article would gave? I think that typically the answer is yes, and that's what using the type ScholarlyArticle implies, although edited journals may also be considered scholarly (falling under the category of open peer review, perhaps). By "no difference other than name" I was really just speaking about the schema.org properties available to the Article and ScholarlyArticle types. If there's a clear statement about the publishing principles of the journal, http://schema.org/publishingPrinciples (which is available to Article/ScholarlyArticle via CreativeWork) should be used. I have modified the type in the example at http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Article#Example_2 to use ScholarlyArticle instead. > What about levels of Open Access? Is that shared or different. My understanding is that schema.org refuses to include license properties, which I believe trying to annotate levels of Open Access would fall under. In the LRMI integration discussion at http://www.lrmi.net/discuss?place=msg%2Flrmi%2F2MS95ox79i0%2FC6d9sZ9SGF0J , when asked why useRightsURL was not included, Dan Brickley responded "See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0089.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0093.html ... this is one of those areas where schema.org is extra careful about introducing new vocabulary that might cause confusion. Publishers are free to include whatever markup they like in their pages." And also from http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org : "For legal reasons, schema.org cannot contain elements for modeling licensing conditions, because site-owners may try to use them to express complex licensing terms for the use of their content by search engines, which cannot be properly handled by Web-scale crawlers." That said, http://schema.org/publishingPrinciples can be used here as well, and hopefully Open Access articles will make use of the http://schema.org/articleBody property to include the text inline, or provide http://schema.org/url properties that resolve to the actual resource rather than a login page; then they'll benefit simply by being able to be found and made use of without barriers. (And of course one could make use of the http://schema.org/Offer agent-promise-object structure to describe paid access to individual non-open-access articles). > I am sure there should be differences between scholarly articles and regular articles even if today they are the same. It would have been fantastic to have brought up those differences during our last few months of Schema BibEx discussions - but certainly better to draw them out now rather than later! Dan
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 14:20:16 UTC