Re: Citation markup with Periodical proposal

Hi Dan,

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4/9/14, 5:04 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Karen, I get the following Turtle for your example:
> >>
> >
> > Thanks, Gregg. And special thanks for using turtle, which I find easier
> to
> > read than JSON (much less JSON-LD).:-)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Note that the article and the periodical are not related to each
> >> other. You're probably missing an @itemprop on the div introducing
> >> the new @itemtype. Perhaps schema:publisher?
> >
> >
> > This is the nut of the problem. The journal unfortunately isn't the
> > publisher -- that would be easier than the reality. The publisher is
> > something like "Elsevier", the journal is a publication, the article is
> *in*
> > the journal. In a citation, it is left to a human brain to make the
> > connection. In the examples [1] the connection is article (incl.
> pagination)
> > -> issue  -> volume -> journal. However, note that this is not the order
> > that is used in MLA citations, which go: article -> journal -> volume ->
> > issue -> date -> pagination.
> >
> > [slightly abbreviated from actual example]
> >
> > @prefix : <http://schema.org/> .
> >
> > [] a :ScholarlyArticle ;
> >     :author "Smiraglia, Richard P." ;
> >     :isPartOf <#issue> ;
> >     :name "Be Careful What You Wish For: FRBR, Some Lacunae, A Review" ;
> >     :pageEnd "368" ;
> >     :pageStart "360" ;
> >
> > <#issue> a :PublicationIssue ;
> >     :datePublished "2012" ;
> >     :isPartOf [ a :PublicationVolume ;
> >             :isPartOf <#periodical> ;
> >             :volumeNumber "50" ] ;
> >     :issueNumber "5" .
> >
> > <#periodical> a :Periodical ;
> >     :name "Cataloging & Classification Quarterly" .
> >
> > ************
> >
> > Could someone who is better than I am at coding try marking up the MLA in
> > html example that I gave using this vocabulary? I've tried, but I can't
> > figure out an elegant way to create this structure with the items in this
> > order:
> >
> > article
> >         author
> >         title
> > periodical
> >         title
> >         volume#
> > issue
> >         issue#
> >         issue date
> > article
> >         pages
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> So if you want a flat / simplistic structure that does not surface any
> structure in the relationship between the Periodical,
> PublicationVolume, and PublicationIssue, the proposal as it stands
> would use "isPartOf" to relate the Periodical, PublicationVolume, and
> PublicationIssue to the Article, like the following:
>
> <p>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
> <span itemprop="author">Carlyle, Allyson.</span>&quot:
> <span itemprop="name">Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR
> and the Bibliographic Universe</span>&quot;
> <div itemprop="isPartOf" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Periodical
> ">
> <em><span itemprop="name">Library Resources and Technical
> Services</span></em></div>v.
> <span itemprop="isPartOf" itemscope itemtype="PublicationVolume"><span
> itemprop="volumeNumber">50</span></span>, no.
> <span itemprop="isPartOf" itemscope itemtype="PublicationIssue"><span
> itemprop="issueNumber">4</span>(<span itemprop="datePublished">October
> 2006</span></span>):
> <span property="pageStart">264</span>-<span
> property="pageEnd">273</span></div> Print.</p>
>
> issueNumber and volumeNumber have rangeIncludes directives that limit
> them to PublicationIssue and PublicationVolume respectively, so
> "sufficiently distinctive" doesn't really matter; using those
> properties directly on Article would simply be an error.
>
> Does that work for you?
>

My email client didn't properly update in time, so I missed your take.
Which provides an interesting contrast regarding nesting isPartOf (which,
being conceptually transitive, makes your example logical, albeit as you
say, lacking some connections). You also touch on the domain of issueNumber
and volumeNumber (I take it you meant domainIncludes?), where as you might
remember I wasn't opposed to more gritty and conflational approaches (not
necessarily *for* that, but I can tolerate it when precision gets in the
way of something useful). :)

Cheers,
Niklas