On 6 February 2012 16:58, Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Ben Companjen <[email protected]>: > ). >> [snip] > > Have you discovered the type lists, e.g.: > http://openlibrary.org/type/author > > http://openlibrary.org/type/ shows the types that exist. > Yes, I have. What I meant is that there are no descriptions for any of these types. I can only guess how these types are used. By the way, it took me a while to find out this list of types is the data model. Searching the website I first encountered several tables and schemas that were outdated.
E.g. /type/edition/distributors - there is no field for distributor(s) in the edit form, and I don't know about the existence of a field for distributor in MARC. So why is this field there? And what is the uris[] field in /type/author for? Is that where VIAF URIs (will) go? >> >> On a side note: I just had a wild idea: don't show the "by statement" >> field on the edit form, not even in the librarian mode, if it is >> empty, so that no one is tempted to put anything in it. > > > That's a possibility. It's mainly there because it comes in on the library > records, not because it's likely that anyone will fill it in. > The label for the By statement field in the edit form kind of invited me to enter something, but I wasn't sure what to put in that field, so I left it empty. > >> OL Edition contributors are >> just saved and treated as strings (which I find a little >> dissapointing), so entering a corporate identity there isn't a >> problem. The RDF template outputs these contributors as foaf:Persons, >> though. > > > Too bad those are just strings. It would be ideal to have all parties > identified. Many people will be authors, contributors and subjects. > And the roles can be identified by URIs too. The British Library's Linked Data even has links from Person to Person-as-subject: http://consulting.talis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/British-Library-Data-Model1.pdf If they can do it, a community like OL's can do it, IMO. > >> >> Your proposed field for "responsible organization" could help here. >> But should it be part of OL's Work or Edition type? > > > I haven't thought that through. > In any case: if it were created, the rationale behind this decision should be made clear. >> >> If we (users) want it, and if the data model supports it, I think we >> can make the data support it, programmatically or manually. I'm from >> the Discogs world, in which everything is done manually by people >> mostly smart enough to match imprints (a.k.a. labels) to >> entities/publishers behind those labels. Even recording, mixing and >> mastering studios and the companies behind the labels (mentioned as >> copyright holders) are matched. Guidelines and some rules are needed >> there, but they seem to work. >> Sure, Open Library is not Discogs and the world of books is different >> from the world of recorded music (one important reason, I guess, is >> that the former is much older), but goals of OL and Discogs are >> similar (one page for every book/music record) and the means >> (collaborative editing) are too. But I'm not here to just promote >> Discogs - I like MusicBrainz very much too ;-) > > > This is also being talked about in the library world. Identifying the > publishers is tricky because of the various mergers, buyouts, etc. Keeping > track of name changes isn't easy. But it would still be better, IMO, to take > a stab at it. > I think it's possible, even though I'm not always sure which city to enter in OL if a book is published by a publisher that is active in many cities in many countries... :) Is there data about mergers, buyouts etc somewhere online? Chambers of Commerce perhaps? Or could OL be the first to try to collect that for the library world? >> >> Just to make sure I understand you correctly: by "collaborator" you >> mean "contributor" in the OL Edition? Or a role at the "creator" >> level? > > > sorry, "contributor" > I haven't come across organizations in the contributors, but that would mean that the RDF shouldn't output these as foaf:Persons either. > >>> >> Sindice.com does some simple inferencing: it can add the superclasses >> of resources in a search result. Not all RDF software will do >> reasoning of course, but I believe in the world of catalogs there will >> be useful software that does do it. > > > And responding to Ross here, I think we agree, though, that identifying > actual person data from agent data might have some advantages, so we should > do that where possible. > > kc > > >> >> Ben >> >>> kc >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> [email protected] http://kcoyle.net >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet >> >> > Ben _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
