W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Proposal: Periodicals, Articles and Multi-volume Works

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:27:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6Nu_je4v2v-Xw8R7xFW=7KXvSDMPcAfRBZdC-uXks73w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Cc: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On 16 January 2014 17:58, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> The SchemaBibEx Group has completed a significant piece of work to arrive at
> a proposal to address the basic description of Articles within issues and/or
> volumes of periodicals of most types - scholarly journals, magazines,
> comics, etc.   The intention being to establish a basic structure that would
> be applicable to many areas, which could be built upon in more specific ways
> for certain domains if need in the future.
> The proposal is on the Web Schemas wiki:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works
> It proposes three new Types: Periodical, PublicationVolume,
> PublicationIssue, and added properties for two existent Types: Article,
> CreativeWork.
> Through this work it became clear that the same framework would also support
> the description of multi-volume works (e.g.. Lord of the Rings)
> We also propose, although it is not our direct area of concern, that the
> Blog type would then naturally fit in the type hierarchy as a sub-type of
> our proposed Periodical type.
> A couple of issues that arose in our discussions that we would wish to seek
> comment from the list:
> sameAs or url
>  In one of our examples we reference the uri of another description of the
> article described:
> <a property="sameAs"
> href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.682254">10.1080/01639374.2012.682254</a>
> The discussion was as to if ‘url’ was the appropriate property to use
> instead of 'sameAs’.
> I shared the majority view that ‘sameAs' was correct.
> Stating owl equivalence or not
> Some of the proposed properties are derived from the bibo ontology.  Our
> inclination is to recommend that in the published documentation
> owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty should be included, as
> against just referencing in text bibo as their inspiration.

Thanks for this! And the nicely detailed

Is it safe to assume that this obsoletes the non-comic-specific
aspects of http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/PeriodicalsComics ?

Also, can you offer any insight on how this fits with
http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle ? I guess they just plug in via the
general Article type? We should also look to improve ScholarlyArticle
of course.



> Comments welcome.
> ~Richard
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 20:28:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:20 UTC