 |
 |
What do you mean by "suggest schema.org"? The website schema.org recommends using HTML5 microdata (which can use any vocabulary that has a URI identifying it), along with suggesting a very basic vocabulary. However, the vocabulary suggested by schema.org does not have terms for the citation details in OpenURL COinS, including volume, issue, start page -- or even including both an article title and a containing journal title, I think. Although they have interestingly added a "ScholarlyArticle" value to their 'type' vocabulary since last time I looked, interesting, I hadn't known that. So what vocabulary are you suggesting using with HTML5 microdata exactly? And is there any useful consuming software that will use it? This is after all why people embed bibliographic data in HTML, for useful consuming software they want to support to consume it, not for fun. If people are looking for vocabularies, the PRISM one is actually being used by scholarly journal publishers (typically in their RSS/Atom feeds), is _relatively_ simple, and is expressive enough to express everything in COinS/scholarly OpenURL and more. Since it is indeed actually being used, and actually being used is what matters, it's the most interesting one to me -- but I don't think anyone's published the 'right' way to use it in HTML5 microdata yet, and I don't think there is any consuming software that will pick up PRISM in HTML5 microdata. Also it's documentation isn't as straightforward as it could be, although the vocabulary itself is fairly straightforward if you look at examples instead of documentation. On 11/20/2012 6:04 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > If the goal is to embed bibliographic metadata in HTML, I would suggest Schema.org instead of COinS. > > Jeff > > Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > It _IS_ an old unused metadata format that should be replaced by > something else (among other reasons because it's actually illegal in > HTML5), but I'm not sure there is a "something else" with the right > balance of flexibility, simplicity, and actual adoption by consuming > software. > > But COinS didn't have a whole lot of adoption by consuming software > either. Can you say what you think the COinS you've been adding are > useful for, what they are getting used for? And what sorts of > 'citations' youw ere adding them for? For my own curiosity, and because > it might help answer if there's another solution that would still meet > those needs. > > But if you want to keep using COinS -- creating a COinS generator like > OCLC's no longer existing one is a pretty easy thing to do, perhaps some > code4libber reading this will be persuaded to find the time to create > one for you and others. If you have a server that could host it, you > could offer that. :) > > > > On 11/20/2012 4:47 PM, Bigwood, David wrote: >> I've used the COinS Generator at OCLC for years. Now it is gone. Any >> suggestions on how I can get an occasional COinS for use in our >> bibliography? Do any of the citation managers generate COinS? >> >> >> >> Or is this just an old unused metadata format that should be replaced by >> something else? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dave Bigwood >> >> [log in to unmask] >> >> Lunar and Planetary Institute >> >> > >