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

Re: Proposal: Promote 'citation' property up to CreativeWork

From: Maori Ito <maori@nibio.go.jp>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:16:49 +0900
Message-ID: <519D8A21.1040508@nibio.go.jp>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Karen, Mizuki (Morita) and all,

Thank you for your mail and I'm sorry for late reply.

I really struggled which choice is better to mark up.
I'd like to discuss:

1.Strongly recommend using ID.
2.Difference between 'citation' and 'reference'
3.Take advantage of itemid

1. Strongly recommend using ID.

If you want to quote publication and if you want to finish it in 3 minutes, do you want to use microdata?
What a mess!
I'd like to say, "No fuss, no mess!"
So I strongly recommend using ID.
There are many who are interested in fun (and/or) benefit.
I'd like to say it's easy and you can feel benefit by using microdata.

The method that I would recommend you is using entryID.
Minimal mark up is using ID "certainly".
If the contents have not ID, please use URL.
If the web developers have a understanding, recommend to use the other properties.
If you are busy or beginners, only using ID.
I hope many people use microdata with citation or reference.
Don't you think that this way would make many metadata?

Here is the example.

<ul itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
Sereno PD (1991) Basal archosaurs: phylogenetic relationships and functional implications Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
<meta itemprop="entryID" content="doi:10.2307/3889336">10.2307/3889336</meta>
Langer MC (2004) The Dinosauria
<meta itemprop="entryID" content="isbn13:9780520242098">9780520242098</meta>
Morita M (2012) Sagace: a web-based search engine for biomedical databases in Japan
<meta itemprop='entryID' content='pmid:23110816'>23110816</meta>


I made a useful tool to make publication list with microdata.

If you enter pubmed id, this tool will make publication list with microdata tag.
Beginners might feel confuse complicate codes.
How about using ID is minimum?

2.Difference between 'citation' and 'reference'

I'm Japanese so I'm not sure the rigid distinction.
However when I read the following links by Mizuki (Morita),
I felt it had better to distinguish between them.


In case of developers quote text, promote to use 'citation' property and in case of developers want to make references (list),
promote to use 'reference' property.

Example markup image of mine is the same as Mizuki (Morita).

3.Take advantage of itemid

I'd like to know what do you think about microdata as a graph?
If microdata can be a graph, what is the node? Page or Data?
If we think data as a node, I recommend to use itemid.

I read several pages about external enumerations and its discussions.
I really struggled about them and talk about it Masahide Kanzaki.
He suggested me links as shown below.
If you mark up like this, you can treat a reference as a data and it will become clear
the relationships between citation and reference.


When I think about Linked data deeply, it will become useful mark up.
We can connect references as individual data with meanings in many pages.
However the mark up is a bit complicated.

If the developers can mark up finely, I think we had better to use itemid too.
I wonder why itemid had to declare with itemtype.

We have to think about how to encourage the developers to apply microdata.
At the same time, we have to have a perspective of using data effectively.

What do you think about these?

#I'm sad that I couldn't get reply about BiologicalDatabaseEntry and BiologicalDatabase proposals.
How to officially join these proposals to schema.org?

#I'm not good at English, if you ok, please reply easily understandable English.


(13/05/16 0:16), Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 5/14/13 10:50 PM, MORITA Mizuki wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Karen has pointed out the difference between a citation and a
>> reference. Is it right?
> Morita - that's an interesting distinction, but I believe that schema.org/citation does not make this distinction, and unfortunately doesn't include an example that would clarify this. In its definition it appears to be closer to what you refer to as a "reference":
> citation     CreativeWork or Text     A citation or reference to another creative work, such as another publication, web page, scholarly article, etc. NOTE: Candidate for promotion to ScholarlyArticle.
> So it is a work referred to from another work, and there is no further definition. My assumption would be that the intra-text links, such as:
> [2]
> (Smith, 2013)
> would not be terribly useful for markup. Instead,markup would be given to the text that is presumably sufficient to actually identify the thing being cited. This could be a simple string (as most cited works are today):
> <span itemprop="citation">Matthews, Joe. "The Value of Information in Library Catalogs." Information Outlook (July, 2000) 18-24.
> </span>
> The other option is that the citation could be coded as a schema/CreativeWork. This would approximate your "reference", below, using "citation" instead of "reference" as its itemprop.
> I'm afraid that regular English usage doesn't have a clear separation between "citation" and "reference": "He cited the article" "There is a citation for the article" "This book has a reference to the article" -- it perhaps should be more clear, but it isn't. (As is the case for so much of English usage -- sorry about that!)
> kc
>>> Richard
>> +1.
>> I've quickly tried to modify the example on the ‘Citation’ Wiki page.
>> Please discard it if it doesn't make sense. It's just a quick thought
>> :-)
>> ==============================
>> <article itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
>>    <p itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
>>      In each of the successively more derived clades Ornithodira,
>> Dinosauria, and Saurischia, the primitive state was an increasingly
>> long neck (<a itemprop="citation" href="#ref-1">Sereno, 1991a</a>; <a
>> itemprop="citation" href="#ref-2">Langer, 2004</a>).
>>    </p>
>>    <ul id="references">
>>      <li itemprop="reference" itemscope
>> itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle" id="ref-1">
>>        <span itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
>>          <span itemprop="familyName">Sereno</span> PD
>>        </span>
>>        (<span itemprop="datePublished">1991</span>)
>>        <cite itemprop="name"><a itemprop="url"
>> href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3889336">Basal archosaurs:
>> phylogenetic relationships and functional implications</a></cite>
>>        <span>
>>          <cite class="source">Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
>> Memoir</cite> <span class="volume">2</span>:<span
>> class="fpage">1</span>
>>        </span>
>>        <meta itemprop="referenceID"
>> content="doi:10.2307/3889336">10.2307/3889336</meta>
>>      </li>
>>      <li itemprop="reference" itemscope
>> itemtype="http://schema.org/Book" id="ref-2">
>>        <span itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
>>          <span itemprop="familyName">Langer</span> MC
>>        </span>
>>        (<span itemprop="datePublished">2004</span>)
>>        <cite itemprop="name"><a itemprop="url"
>> href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?vid=ISBN9780520242098">The
>> Dinosauria</a></cite>
>>        <meta itemprop="referenceID"
>> content="isbn13:9780520242098">9780520242098</meta>
>>      </li>
>>    </ul>
>> </article>
>> ==============================
>> Best,
>> Mizuki

-- :-);-)
Maori Ito
Email : maori@nibio.go.jp
National Institute of Biomedical Innovation (NIBIO)
Bioinformatics Project : http://mizuguchilab.org/
Sagace : http://sagace.nibio.go.jp
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2013 03:21:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC