Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

On 2/4/13 1:46 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:

> 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.


Richard, I think that productontology.org can be ONE source of URIs, but 
definitely not the only one. Library data already has definitions of 
content and carrier (with URIs) [1], and publishers have their own in 
ONIX. In fact, I just looked at the wikipedia page for "audiobook" and 
it would include things that libraries consider distinct (spoken 
recording vs. audiobook). So each community will have its own 
definitions and they may be similar but have their own distinctions.

Within a community of practice it may be desirable to include the URI 
for the nearest productontology.org "thing" but that would be a 
community decision.

Also, I have to say that wikipedia mixes up content and carrier 
something terrible. Here is its definition of "book"

"A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made 
of ink, paper, parchment, or other materials, usually fastened together 
to hinge at one side."

It may be good for non-creative products (printers and hard drives and 
such) but for creative works it is quite possible that libraries and 
publishers have done a better job of defining those things.

kc

[1] 336 - Content Type 
http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/45.html
337 - Media Type 
http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/37.html
338 - Carrier Type 
http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html
>
> 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
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 14:29:13 UTC