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

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

From: Shlomo Sanders <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:03:12 +0000
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
CC: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCED0ABC-45E2-47D8-AF1C-AE2B248B8C38@exlibrisgroup.com>
I agree with the basic structure and the ability it gives to grow.
Only recently I have been delving into the "special" scholarly article attributes and have come up with 2 (peer review and open access). Perhaps attributes connected wit altmetrics are also relevant.

Thanks,
Shlomo

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 19, 2014, at 22:53, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Dan(s) & Shlomo for diving in.  I have been off-air for family reasons since I posted the proposal.
> 
> The only extra comment I would make at this stage:
> 
>>> I am sure there should be differences between scholarly articles and regular articles even if today they are the same.
>> 
>> It would have been fantastic to have brought up those differences
>> during our last few months of Schema BibEx discussions - but certainly better to draw them out now rather than later!
> 
> This brings me back to the comment I made at the time “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.”
> 
> As with comics, etc. there could be much valuable work that can be done in domain specific areas building on this basic structure.  Trying to build an all encompassing proposal was becoming unwieldy so we [in SchemaBibEx] felt that it would be most productive to focus our efforts initially at this generic level.
> 
> I fully hope that there will be other/future proposals that take this one as a start point.  By separating out domain specific discussions, building on a common framework, I believe that we will evolve our way towards a more stable cohesive solution.
> 
> 
> ~Richard
> 
>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 09:19, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Shlomo Sanders
>> <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Isn't a scholarly article Peer Reviewed which not something a regular article would gave?
>> 
>> I think that typically the answer is yes, and that's what using the
>> type ScholarlyArticle implies, although edited journals may also be
>> considered scholarly (falling under the category of open peer review,
>> perhaps).
>> 
>> By "no difference other than name" I was really just speaking about
>> the schema.org properties available to the Article and
>> ScholarlyArticle types. If there's a clear statement about the
>> publishing principles of the journal,
>> http://schema.org/publishingPrinciples (which is available to
>> Article/ScholarlyArticle via CreativeWork) should be used.
>> 
>> I have modified the type in the example at
>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Article#Example_2 to use
>> ScholarlyArticle instead.
>> 
>>> What about levels of Open Access? Is that shared or different.
>> 
>> My understanding is that schema.org refuses to include license
>> properties, which I believe trying to annotate levels of Open Access
>> would fall under.
>> 
>> In the LRMI integration discussion at
>> http://www.lrmi.net/discuss?place=msg%2Flrmi%2F2MS95ox79i0%2FC6d9sZ9SGF0J
>> , when asked why useRightsURL was not included, Dan Brickley responded
>> "See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0089.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0093.html
>> ... this is one of those areas where schema.org is extra careful about
>> introducing new vocabulary that might cause confusion. Publishers are
>> free to include whatever markup they like in their pages."
>> 
>> And also from http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org
>> : "For legal reasons, schema.org cannot contain elements for modeling
>> licensing conditions, because site-owners may try to use them to
>> express complex licensing terms for the use of their content by search
>> engines, which cannot be properly handled by Web-scale crawlers."
>> 
>> That said, http://schema.org/publishingPrinciples can be used here as
>> well, and hopefully Open Access articles will make use of the
>> http://schema.org/articleBody property to include the text inline, or
>> provide http://schema.org/url properties that resolve to the actual
>> resource rather than a login page; then they'll benefit simply by
>> being able to be found and made use of without barriers. (And of
>> course one could make use of the http://schema.org/Offer
>> agent-promise-object structure to describe paid access to individual
>> non-open-access articles).
>> 
>>> I am sure there should be differences between scholarly articles and regular articles even if today they are the same.
>> 
>> It would have been fantastic to have brought up those differences
>> during our last few months of Schema BibEx discussions - but certainly
>> better to draw them out now rather than later!
>> 
>> Dan
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 06:03:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:21 UTC