Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

I've looked again at the content-carrier proposal and I believe that it 
confounds content and carrier, so maybe we need a bit more clarification.

The proposal uses "audiobook on CD" for carrier. Clearly, however, 
"audiobook" is a creative work with producers, a reader (very important 
- audio book readers are becoming famed for their performances), a date 
of creation, not to mention information like "abridged/un abridged" and 
separate copyrights. An audiobook can have a number of carriers, 
including being digital in WMA or MP3 format, with or without specific DRM.

Carrier needs to be defined much like mime types -- very strictly 
limited to the physical form or digital encoding of the content, but not 
the content genre. If this makes sense to folks, then perhaps we can 
come up with a shared definition and some examples.

The difficulty, as I see it, is with the combination of physical carrier 
("Compact Disc") and encoding ("MP3 w. Overdrive DRM"). To what extent 
can we make assumptions that a "CD" is a "CD" for all purposes? For 
example, with DVDs, there are those horrid region codes that you must 
specify or people don't know if they can play the DVD in their player. 
So "DVD" alone does not define the encoded DRM; instead, there are two 
parts: physical carrier (DVD) and encoding (region-limited DRM). Or I 
can copy a large file to DVD that is a .iso file. Are these both carrier?

We might want to look at the sub-types of
   http://schema.org/MediaObject

These appear to be intended only for online/embedded media, but probably 
have some overlap with our case.

kc

On 2/4/13 4:22 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Richard,
>
> as also discussed off-line, I changed the microdata/RDFa coding a bit. The previous solution in microdata was
>
> <span property="additionalType" href="..." >
>
> but that is invalid HTML5 (@href can appear on <link> and <a> elements only). I added <link> to the encoding instead (microdata allows the usage of <link> anywhere, not only in the header).
>
> I have also changed the RDFa part to be more in line with that version of microdata by folding the type specification into @typeof directly (RDFa allows that, the usage of explicit rdf:type or schema:additionalType is, though correct, unnecessary...)
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 22:04 , Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> 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.
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 19:26:06 UTC