pressbooks
pressbooks copied to clipboard
pressbooks
Correct how we use 'reviewer' & reviewedBy in Book Info and metadata
Description
Steps to Reproduce
https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/0/?hl=es#url=http%3A%2F%2Fpb.default.books4languages.com%2Fbook-test%2F
Expected behavior: The properties are correct
Actual behavior: a property is wrong
Thanks.
reviewedBy was recommended for academic books. Technically it is of type WebPage, not Book, so yes it's invalid.
However, what you reported is a warning, not an error. Are you suggesting we we remove the node from the webpage specifc metadata?
i´m thinking to use Reviewer(s) field name in book info
and to offer to google schema as contributor.
what do you think?
otherwise, google will not read those names. and is good to split in book info in the current way.
maybe, to use https://schema.org/Role helps to define the people that works in the book
I'm looking at the MARC relators list for reviewer (https://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html#:~:text=Reviewer) and see this definition (A person or organization responsible for the review of a book, motion picture, performance, etc.). That makes it sound like someone who has written a review of the book, not the person who copy-edited/reviewed a work. I think we're using the schema framework incorrectly in this case.
Ned wrote me:
As far as I can remember this was something Hugh wanted and was meant to be a reviewer in the academic sense (as you identified, copy-editing/reviewing work before publication). Sort of like a peer reviewer. This doesn’t conform to that MARC definition. It might be a good idea to see try to assess how and where books are using this role and potentially remove it or further disambiguate it from critic reviews. Maybe change it to 'peer reviewer'?
