- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:20:51 -0500
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAChbWaNoi381egaipLjhrqhBLd=rpQKqMFquYioxnPAh1aX_aw@mail.gmail.com>
Shelf number is similar to warehousing and inventory principles of a "bin" which is a specific ___location on a shelf and rack. We do not have any of those Properties in Schema.org...probably should however, but that is more and more into physical inventory management....a long tail ___domain that Martin has explored but only under the covers on his own, I'm afraid.... so.. Just extend Schema.org and add "bin" "shelf", etc....as a custom property under where you see it fitting most appropriately... then make the proposal for that one as well. On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Thad, what you describe is exactly how libraries work. Each has a > different barcode for their copies regardless of whether it's a separate > library or a branch in a system. They also have a different barcode for > each copy of the same book/DVD/CD in that library. That's because the > barcode is at the physical copy level. "Item" in this case really does mean > "instance" not "product." > > I agree that IndivudualProduct has this same sense. And that's where > serialNumber is coming from. Serial number ~= library use of barcode. > > Where we're stuck is on the other useful number, the shelf number. I don't > know of anything equivalent in schema... but admit that schema has a lot of > properties and there might be one that fits this case. > > kc > > > On 10/15/13 11:48 AM, Thad Guidry wrote: > >> Depends on your context and viewpoint. >> >> Your thinking that all 3 of my branch libraries are the same company. >> >> I was thinking and treating all 3 of my branch libraries as >> competitors... like Barnes and Noble, Amazon, and Abebooks. >> >> Each of the 3 competitors all sell copies of "Gone with the Wind"...but >> each one has a different SKU for the inventory system. >> >> In libraries, the inventory system handles data for all 3 + whatever >> branches or university annexes. A library system would be equivalent to >> 1 of those competitors. >> >> My opinion at this point ? Just EXTEND Schema.org in that direction >> that you need, specific for Libraries around the world. >> >> Schema.org/Product is where you land... then just extend off that for >> now for all your holdings needs around a specific Item.. or in >> Schema.org terms.. a http://schema.org/**IndividualProduct<http://schema.org/IndividualProduct> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >> >> Thad, the library barcodes are on individual physical items -- each >> book in each library -- not on the product. Two copies of the same >> book each get different barcodes. This is different from how "items" >> are treated in stores, which is that the "item" (e.g. distinct >> product) gets an sku, and then the inventory says how many of those >> are on hand. Because libraries lend items, and those items return, >> the library concept of "item" is more specific than the warehouse >> concept of item (which is a product that may exist in more than one >> exemplar). >> >> In fact, this makes SKU analogous to the shelf number, but only in a >> superficial way. Shelf number does indicate a particular product but >> its main function is relative ___location and place in a classification >> of knowledge. >> >> kc >> >> >> On 10/15/13 11:04 AM, Thad Guidry wrote: >> >> Your library barcodes will be SKUs in Schema.org >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>> wrote: >> >> Dan, your argument makes sense, however in actual libraries >> inventory is done with barcodes - that is, that is how >> libraries >> count what they have. And inventory # has to be 1:1 with >> things >> owned. So maybe the issue is that we don't want to use the >> term >> "inventory identifier" for call numbers because it will >> confuse >> those who use the barcode to do their inventory. >> >> This means that we are still lacking a term for the call >> number/shelf number. Part of the complication is that the >> shelf >> number has a locating function, but the ___location is >> relative, not >> fixed. Another part of the complication is that it's not >> just a >> ___location, it's an indication of the subject matter. >> >> I think getting the idea of ___location into the name or the >> definition >> would be helpful. Lacking that, bringing out the >> classification >> aspect might speak to potential users. >> >> kc >> >> >> On 10/15/13 10:34 AM, Dan Scott wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Karen Coyle >> <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>> >> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Richard. Personally, I would switch >> inventoryIdentifier and >> serialNumber -- the barcode on the book is the >> inventory >> identifier. Serial >> number works just as well for either, so it could >> be the >> call number. >> >> >> I still think that's the wrong way around. This is not >> "serial >> number >> as in ISSN", but "serial number as in uniquely >> identifies a single >> item". barcode is a much, much better fit for >> schema.org/serialNumber <http://schema.org/**serialNumber<http://schema.org/serialNumber> >> > >> <http://schema.org/__**serialNumber<http://schema.org/__serialNumber>< >> http://schema.org/**serialNumber <http://schema.org/serialNumber>>> >> >> >> in my opinion, as while we have established that some >> libraries use >> the same call number for multiple copies of a given >> item, I don't >> think there are any libraries that use the same barcode >> more than >> once. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_**___Serial_number<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/____Serial_number> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**__Serial_number<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Serial_number> >> > >> >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**__Serial_number<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Serial_number> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Serial_number<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_number>>> >> says "A serial >> number (also >> manufacturer's serial number or MSN) is a unique code >> assigned for >> identification of a single unit. Although usually called >> a >> number, it >> may include letters, though ending with digits. >> Typically serial >> numbers of a production run are incremented by one, or >> another fixed >> difference, from one unit to the next." That last bit >> also sounds an >> awful lot like how barcodes are typically generated, >> and not at all >> how call numbers are assigned (accession numbers, sure, >> but that's a >> different beast). >> >> Richard, do you have a proposed definition for >> schema.org/inventoryIdentifier >> <http://schema.org/**inventoryIdentifier<http://schema.org/inventoryIdentifier> >> > >> <http://schema.org/__**inventoryIdentifier<http://schema.org/__inventoryIdentifier> >> >> <http://schema.org/**inventoryIdentifier<http://schema.org/inventoryIdentifier>>>__? >> I'm keen on finding >> out how it differs >> substantially from schema.org/sku >> <http://schema.org/sku> <http://schema.org/sku>. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_**___Sku<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/____Sku> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**__Sku<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Sku> >> > >> >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**__Sku<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__Sku> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Sku<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sku> >> >> >> uses the definition: "a unique identifier for each >> distinct product >> and service that can be purchased in business"; that's >> pretty >> close to >> what I would think of as an inventory identifier. If >> we're going to >> argue for the addition of a new property, it's going to >> need to be >> convincingly different! >> >> Other than that, I think this is good to go, but we >> never >> got a definitive >> answer about de-commercializing the definitions, >> did we? >> However, we also >> got only positive responses, as I recall. >> >> >> Yes, there seems to be a limited attention span on >> public-vocabs >> and I >> think most of that attention recently has been gobbled >> up by >> SKOS and >> to a lesser extent the accessibility proposal... but >> like you I >> don't >> recall any opposition to the notion. I wouldn't be >> surprised if >> schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> 1.0d was >> >> released and the changes >> >> were just there! >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> >> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> >> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> <tel:1-510-435-8234 >> >> <tel:1-510-435-8234>> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Thad >> Thad on Freebase.com >> <http://www.freebase.com/view/**__en/thad_guidry<http://www.freebase.com/view/__en/thad_guidry> >> <http://www.freebase.com/view/**en/thad_guidry<http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry> >> >> >> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/__**thadguidry/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/__thadguidry/> >> >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/**thadguidry/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Thad >> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/**en/thad_guidry<http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry> >> > >> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/**thadguidry/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/> >> > >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > -- -Thad Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 19:21:20 UTC