Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

Niklas,

I think you emphasis a good point here.   The goal is to add meaning in the
generic vocabulary that Schema is.

As metadata focused folk, the natural urge is to layer levels of meaning
atop of basic information.

Content and carrier/container has meaning in our domain (not always that
obvious meaning, considering the miles of email text created on the topic
;-)  which may not translate well across domains.   We see a book, in audio
format, delivered in a CD container.  Other may see a CD of an audiobook.

Karen points out the benefits of such data in the building of such facets
and indexes ­ we naturally assume that the creative work is the core entity
with things like audiobook and CD being facets.  A retailer may well look at
it from the the other end of the telescope with the physical thing being
prime and things such as it being Œof a book¹ being secondary.  By applying
our concepts, of what could be useful in building indexes, we may actually
make it more difficult for data consumers with different views.

The approach of applying multiple types, proposed here, allows for a thing
to be of many types at the same time ­ a book, an audio book, and a CD. This
enables, with the benefit of initiatives such as productontology.org, most
types to be described leaving the option of choosing which of the multiple
types is the main focus to the consumer.

Additional type was not in the original Schema spec, being introduced a year
later to add to microdata an ability, that comes by default with RDFa, to
replicate a real world need for multiple types.  Because of this we have a
legacy of individual solutions, such as MediaObject, which will cause some
initial confusion as this more general approach gets adopted.

~Richard.

On 03/02/2013 23:57, "Niklas Lindström" <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I figure that the focus here is to find some minimal
> indication of this distinction via some properties on the same
> (overloaded) resource to start with. That should be usable too.
> 
> .. I may have made my own mess of conflations here of course, e.g. by
> equating container and manifestation. But I trust you to set me
> straight. ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Niklas
> 
> 
>> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> >
>>> >> The question is: what about other industries? Music? Movie publishers?
>>> Software? Games? Groceries? I'm trying to think as broadly as possible.
>>> >>
>>> >> kc
>>> >>
>>> >> On 2/3/13 12:41 PM, Laura Dawson wrote:
>>>> >>> Outside the library world, we refer to it as "content" and "container"
-
>>>> >>> so I don't think it's too far off.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 2/3/13 3:30 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> Richard,
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Thanks for starting this. My first comment is that we need some good
>>>>> >>>> definitions of "content" and "carrier." It's fairly common
>>>>> terminology
>>>>> >>>> in the library world but not beyond.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> My second is that this links to a more general discussion I have been
>>>>> >>>> thinking of starting on the general vocab list, which is about
>>>>> >>>> "re-usable bits and facets." The content and carrier concepts are
>>>>> almost
>>>>> >>>> universals and I can imagine "carrier" becoming a re-usable facet
>>>>> >>>> available to any schemas that fine it useful. (Ditto things like
>>>>> >>>> "location"). The library "content & carrier" could become a focus for
>>>>> >>>> talking about how truly non-specific these concepts are and why the
>>>>> >>>> creation of freely available facets could aid in metadata
>>>>> development.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> kc
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On 2/2/13 1:04 PM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> I have just added a Content-Carrier proposal to the Wiki.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> It does not propose extension of the vocabulary as such, but I have
>>>>>> >>>>> linked it from the Vocabulary Proposals page
>>>>>> >>>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>
as
>>>>>> >>>>> it is a proposal as to a recommended way to apply the current
>>>>>> vocabulary
>>>>>> >>>>> to address an issue that concerns this group.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> --
>>>>> >>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> >>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>>> >>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>>> >>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>> >>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Karen Coyle
>>> >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> >> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> >> skype: kcoylenet
>>> >>
>> >
> 
> 
>