W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Proposal for an additional term: mediaType

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:36:28 +0100
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "Suliman, Suraiya H" <suraiya.h.suliman@lmco.com>
CC: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, "Stuart A. Sutton" <sasutton@dublincore.net>
Message-ID: <CC822BEC.27EA%richard.wallis@oclc.org>

On 21/09/2012 13:57, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 21 September 2012 14:21, Suliman, Suraiya H
> <suraiya.h.suliman@lmco.com> wrote:
>> Trying to revive this thread as those of us working on the LRMI tagger see a
>> need to capture "mediaType" information and would like to work towards
>> consensus on how to handle this in Schema.org.
>> Given that DC and EBUCore (among others) have tried to address this issue and
>> have some proposed solutions, how can we accomodate format/medium in
>> schema.org? I think attributes "encoding" and "genre" ad dress things covered
>> by DC "type". There is still a need to for things like MIMEtype, the physical
>> medium,  container format etc. Can we start with the DC "format" as the
>> straw-man and see if this adequately covers "format" in schema.org?
> Thanks for the nudge here.
> As previous discussion shows, various communities have all got some
> partial coverage of this issue, and as we consider e.g. the Library
> -oriented proposals from OCLC to improve our bibliographic vocabulary,
> the same ("content vs carrier") distinctions will re-appear.
> Can we separate the question of 'which schema.org property to use'
> from the question of the values? What would be super-useful right now,
> is a list of those specific values. We'll need to split them into
> fields/properties of course, but for now just seeing a big collection
> of the values would be helpful... particularly those that occur in
> educational datasets.  Generally with schema.org we try to 'surface'
> existing content in more explicit form, rather than introduce new
> representations, so anything you have from the LRMI community could
> help guide us...
> cheers,
> Dan
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 13:37:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:25 UTC