Re: Remarks on process and workload

I agree that the "few additions to schema.org" that I, too, expected, 
has been passed, and I suspect that my participation is ending as of 
this call.

kc

On 12/11/13, 12:34 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi all
>
> On 12/11/13 1:17 AM, Corey A Harper wrote:
>> [...] I don't have the time to put in the hard work hashing out the
>> details of how to reconcile and render compatible the 3 or 4 (or 5?)
>> different proposals on the table. I really don't think they're that
>> far apart. I wish I had more bandwidth to work on it.
>>
>> Given that I don't I believe it's probably best that I back out of the
>> conversation now and not join tomorrow's call.
>>
>> Regrets for that, and thank you all for the work you've put in on this.
>
>
> I'm on a similar position.
>
> When we started the group I had the feeling that this was about the
> mapping of existing data (and the vocabularies that go with them) to
> schema.org, possibly suggesting extensions to schema.org when there was
> a big miss there.
>
> In this respect one recent addition to the Periodical thread, i.e.
> trying to connect to Bibo, fits quite well.
>
> But the entire discussion, where people think of what
> periodicals/volumes are, and then compare it to what they are in an
> already existing and complete approach (comics), then try to map to an
> existing ontology (Bibo) and then question again what periodicals and
> volume and citations are, that's just too much.
>
> To be clear: I respect very much the work being done. And I'm sure it is
> useful to the community in the end. It's just that I too don't have the
> time to contribute that much, unfortunately.
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 11:08:19 UTC