W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2013

Re: schema.org 1.0a revision: LRMI, Datasets, Audience, Technical Publishing vocabulary and more.

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:58:18 -0700
Message-ID: <5160542A.20309@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Thanks, Phil. That makes it clearer. Perhaps the definition could 
include the term "derivative"?

I ask because in the schema-bibExtend group [1] we are talking about a 
class called "collection" [2] which is a common concept in library and 
archival data. Collection does imply the whole/part. This suggests that 
isPartOf would need to be promoted to CreativeWork or even Thing.


[1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Main_Page
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection

On 4/6/13 9:05 AM, Phil Barker wrote:
> Hello Karen, isBasedOn came from the LRMI work that I was involved in.
> The intention was that be used to indicate a relationship such as an
> adaptation or derivative work (think of the things that aren't allowed
> by the Creative Commons No Derivative license), not a simple whole/part
> relationship such as the example you give.
> Curiously enough isPartOf is a property for web pages but not other
> creative works in Schema.
> Phil
> On 06/04/13 15:54, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Thanks, Dan. Great when things, work, eh? I compared the previous and
>> current versions of CreativeWork (the hiccup allowed me to grab the
>> version being replaced) -- and have a question about isBasedOnUrl,
>> which is defined as:
>> " A resource that was used in the creation of this resource. This term
>> can be repeated for multiple sources. For example,
>> http://example.com/great-multiplication-intro.html"
>> Unfortunately, the example isn't clear to me, so my question is: is
>> this a part/whole relationship (e.g. essay or chapter in a book; one
>> volume of the LOR trilogy in a boxed set) or is it a transformative
>> relationship (e.g. book that was made into a movie)?
>> Thanks,
>> kc
>> On 4/5/13 9:16 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> And we're back. Apologies for the hiccup!
>>> On 5 April 2013 01:48, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Excuse this brief note; I'll write more in a week. We've just
>>>> published a revision to schema.org including substantial new
>>>> vocabulary that improves
>>>> The new version is numbered 1.0a indicating that this is approaching a
>>>> full 1.0 release but that we still have a few additions to make before
>>>> we declare we're at a full 1.0.
>>>> The 1.0a additions are considered stable, but we will fix any bugs or
>>>> problems that implementors encounter during this 'soft release'.
>>>> Additions include the Datasets vocabulary, LRMI for
>>>> education/learning, technical publishing vocabulary, more vocabulary
>>>> for describing Audiences, and some supporting utility terms for
>>>> describing schema.org types, properties and their inter-relationships.
>>>> I won't attempt here to list everyone who contributed to these new
>>>> additions (it deserves a blog post), but thanks for all your hard work
>>>> and patience. There are plenty more additions still in the pipeline
>>>> and I look forward to following this announcement with work towards a
>>>> 1.0b update. In the meantime please share any feedback, issues etc on
>>>> the WebSchemas and LRMI lists.
>>>> http://schema.org/docs/full.html as always has pointers to the full
>>>> vocabulary.
>>>> For LRMI, http://schema.org/AlignmentObject is the main type,
>>>> alongside additions to http://schema.org/CreativeWork
>>>> For Datasets, we added http://schema.org/Dataset and some nearby
>>>> types...
>>>> Dan

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 16:58:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC