W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Redefine and reuse?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:03:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFqiEwMpJYeuG5A46-Hb3fX2YHLvigxm=DU6xvZ4b+k30Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 23 July 2013 15:55, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> On 7/23/13 5:18 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Just for contrast: there is another example of where Good Relations
>> and the BibExtend work also overlap in their interests: FRBR-like
>> models.
> Actually, Dan, the BibExtend group is quite torn about FRBR-like models,
> with a good part of the group (perhaps the majority) opposed to introducing
> the concepts into schema.org.

Yes, I didn't say you liked FRBR; just that there is some
interest/fascination there.

> The handling of "mass-produced thing" vs. "individual for sale or loan"
> seems to be handled by /sku (or /isbn on the part of books) and
> /IndividualProduct. However, it might be good to clarify "model" vs.
> "individual." Any lending or leasing activity (think car rental) will need
> to keep track of individuals. I would suggest extending the definition of
> IndividualProduct, which now reads:
> "A single, identifiable product instance (e.g. a laptop with a particular
> serial number)."
> to say, perhaps:
> "A single, identifiable product instance (e.g. a laptop with a particular
> serial number or the license number of a rental car)."

Sounds plausible

> That said, what are the pros and cons of, say, using something as specific
> as /sku for (e.g.) the individual shelf number of a book in a library? Is
> this "too far?" The definition reads:
> "The Stock Keeping Unit (SKU), i.e. a merchant-specific identifier for a
> product or service, or the product to which the offer refers."
> Other than the term Stock Keeping Unit, this does reflect the meaning of the
> individual book number. However, no one in libraries would ever refer to the
> book number as a SKU. The question becomes whether we are looking at the
> schema.org property as a general concept or a specific thing. I can see good
> arguments for both:
>  - associating with a general concept, like Offer, brings together offers
> from different communities, even if they natively use different terminology
>  - not using the terminology of the community is likely to impede adoption
> of schema.org, as people will look for their terminology and will not find
> it.
> The latter problem, in library terms, is called an "entry vocabulary
> problem." If there were a way to say: "shelf or call number -> use /sku"
> then it could be solved. In essence, this is a skos:altLabel in
> functionality, or it could be an owl:sameAs.
> I suspect that these issues are not specific to the bibliographic world, but
> they are BIG issues, and not easily solved.

Yes, big and slippery issues. In this case, it's tempting to suggest
naming a common super-property. But then we've got 3 terms instead of
1, not necessarily progress.


> kc
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 14:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:00 UTC