Re: Citation markup with Periodical proposal

Coming out of a day of wall-2-wall meetings to find this list has made the points I was going to make and formed a general consensus is great!

So all I can add is, support to Dan’s earlier comment that the SchemaBibex "proposal slants toward hierarchical markup” yet "At the same time, we can also support quite flat markup" - “ ..the proposal fills a significant gap in the schema.org<http://schema.org> vocabulary.”

Plus I acknowledge that the examples in the proposal are lacking one that demonstrates this flat approach.

I will work with Dan to get such an example added to the proposal and also take this into account when we add to the SchemaBibEx Recipes and Guidelines<https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Recipes_and_Guidelines> section, once it has been adopted

Thanks to Karen for raising this and to all who contributed.

~Richard

On 9 Apr 2014, at 14:14, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net<mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:48:56PM +0200, Karen Coyle wrote:
Thanks, Niklas and Dan and Adrian.

Niklas, yours is a successful version of something that I tried unsuccessfully - nesting all of the periodical "parts" in between article properties. The turtle makes sense to me, even though the RDFa is hard to grasp (but then, I'm not a machine).

Dan, I couldn't turtle-ize yours, and the rich snippet tool appears to be flaky and wouldn't spit out the pages section. It may be equivalent to Niklas' - I have no idea. Sorry.

My fault: I'm much better at RDFa than I am at microdata; I should have
prefixed http://schema.org/ to the PublicationVolume / PublicationIssue
types in my microdata example. At least that works as I meant it to in
http://linter.structured-data.org and
http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller (and by the way, Gregg, you rock
for providing both of those services!)

In any case, the core difference between Niklas's and my example is that
I did not include any nesting, because I thought flat was what you were
asking for. And yes, the Rich Snippet Tool is well-known for dropping
properties that it doesn't recognize (it complains about isPartOf and
presumably can't be bothered to complain about pageStart / pageEnd).

Let's get this proposal adopted and put the Rich Snippet Tool to work!