- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 07:31:38 -0700
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Dan Brickley replied on the vocabs list [1] to a question about changing existing schema.org elements: "We don't have very rigid policies. But in general, there's a strong bias towards additive changes, since any existing vocabulary that is being used is unlikely to completely vanish." This now leaves us with a bit of a dilemma for holdings. We have essentially two holdings proposals. One defines new elements [2], and one makes use of existing properties, although those would probably need to have their definitions expanded. [3] In addition, [2] needs a class -- either the properties would be sub-classed to, for example, /Library, or there needs to be a new class for library holdings. But /Library is a "/LocalBusiness", which is location-oriented and has no relation to /Offer, while library holdings is a kind of combination of location and offer. If we go with [3] then we would be re-using existing properties and classes, and the "library-ness" would be less evident in the holdings area (although presumably there would be some use of /Library in the markup). There was some positive feedback about changing /Offer so that it could be used for things other than sales. I'm not sure how to go about proposing the other changes that [3] would entail. Should we propose them en masse? one at a time? kc [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jul/0167.html [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Jul/0083.html -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 14:31:59 UTC