Re: Process Question

On 2 February 2012 16:40, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
> In regards to one of the open questions...more questions...
>
> 1. I think that the Periodical Series would "contain" multiple Creative
> Works which are the individual Issues themselves.  I do not think that a
> Periodical Series can be a Creative Work in itself, unless you give it more
> definition.  For instance, I do not see any properties on the Periodical
> Series that would hold a "creator".  Perhaps you are you just missing that ?
>  and if so then...question 2...
>
> 2. Can you logically fill in WHO created the "X-Men comic book series" ?  or
> is it easier to say WHO created the "X-men comic book characters" that
> became featured in a Comic Book Series ?
>
> In Freebase, we have a "created by" property on the Comic Book Series
> type: http://www.freebase.com/edit/topic/en/uncanny_x-men and http://www.freebase.com/edit/topic/m/02hqp38
>
> 3. Are there properties on the Freebase Comic Book Series type that could be
> borrowed ?  I am thinking "First Issue" and "Final Issue" which would be
> linked elements to an individual Comic Issue.  I notice you have startYear
> and endYear under Periodical Series...is there also a need to quickly link
> out to the First or Final Comic Issue ?

Thanks for posting this, Peter! I might move it under SchemaDotOrg/
path shortly (having realised that MediaWiki allows this; and we can
automatically redirect) but for now just a quick question:

re http://www.w3.org/wiki/PeriodicalsComics#Periodicals_and_Comics

* Periodical Series - sequential groupings of periodical issues
* Periodical Issues - individual instances of periodicals

...how well do we (the wider 'we' here) think that this construction
would work for scholarly publications (academic journals etc.) as well
as for Comics? http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle doesn't currently
add a lot to the classes it sub-classes: CreativeWork and Article.



Regarding process, I was thinking to make something the following
stages more explicit -

"RUMOUR", "BRAINSTORM", "RESEARCH", "DRAFT", "PROPOSAL", ...

... and make a more structured table of proposals in the Wiki. We
don't need anything as formal as the main W3C process, but having some
basic notion of workflow here is missing so far.

So - a process sketch:

Something is 'rumour' if all the discussion is off list or in
company-only settings. This happens but we want to avoid it, ... so I
think indicating that a topic has been mentioned offlist is a
reasonable approach here.

We're in 'brainstorm' mode when there are are few threads,
discussions, posts, talking about a topic ... sketching requirements
or possibilities.

We're doing 'research' when we've tracked down relevant sample sites
that might publish such data, existing structured data vocabularies,
alternative designs and related efforts.

...and we've got a 'draft' when there's a page in the wiki that
articulates all this in terms of additional or edited definitions for
schema.org classes and properties.

This isn't completely linear; drafts can evolve as the background
research (e.g. into overlapping areas, such as tv vs radio, or comics
vs academic journals) is explored.

For the final step, an actual change proposal, I've been looking at
ways we might make this more concrete.

This won't suit everyone, but as a possibility: in W3C's Mercurial
repository, there is now an HTML+RDFa formatted dump of the schema.org
schema.

It's under https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/ in the
schema.org/drafts/alpha/ directory. The file rdfa.html has annotated
HTML definitions for everything in the schema. I've also put
experimental versions of the data in other formats there too. A direct
link to today's timestamped version is
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/8919a6aff8bf/schema.org/drafts/alpha
 ... (the 'raw' link will get you the HTML for download) some
background on the Mercurial tool (it's similar to Git) is
http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Mercurial  ...

Making proposals in the wiki (or in PDF or HTML or plain text email)
is absolutely fine. However at some point we'll need to translate them
into specific edits to the schema, and make sure we have the exact
text and domain/range fields needed. For larger proposals, or for
exploring how different proposals fit together, I think the rdfa.html
version of the schema may be useful. We'll see!

cheers,

Dan

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 16:35:02 UTC