Re: "citation" property needed on ScholarlyArticle

I would like to see us use Alf's proposal as an end-to-end test of the
process. I say this for a few reasons:

* It should be uncontroversial since it was originally proposed by the
schema.org creators themselves, as noted in the documentation [1]
* It is a fairly small change, and we should be able to get get
agreement about it as a group. If we can't agree about this, I suspect
we won't be able to agree about anything. Also, we don't really know
what "agreement" means in practice yet.
* If we wait to submit all of our changes at once we may overwhelm the
schema.org community with too many changes at one time, and impede a
relatively simple fix from being done.
* If we wait to submit all of our changes at once Alf can't start
using citation in the real-world-work he is no doubt doing, which
would help spread the use of the schema.org vocabularies.

In general I'd like to see us take an iterative approach to helping
make schema.org better for bibliographic data -- instead of a
waterfall model [2].

//Ed

[1] http://schema.org/MedicalScholarlyArticle
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Alf Eaton <eaton.alf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 February 2013 13:24, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>>> Who should now forward this proposal to the public-vocabs list and the
>>> WebSchemas wiki?
>>
>> There are two options for that.
>>
>> 1. You can submit it directly to the public-vocabs list and WebSchemas wiki
>> now as an individual.
>>
>> 2. It can be submitted along with the other proposals we agree in this
>> group.  The benefit of this is that it will be supported by a group of
>> domain interested people/organisations and form part of a considered set of
>> proposals to make Schema more applicable to bibliographic resources.
>>
>> I would hope to draw together that set of proposals for submission in the
>> not too distant future - something I want to discuss in the next meeting
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219>
>
> Ok, I'll wait to see what happens in the meeting - if the expected
> group submission is not too far in the distant future it can wait to
> be submitted with the other proposals.
>
> Alf

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 20:23:58 UTC