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

Re: Proposal: Audiobook

From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:46:55 +0000
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
CC: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <246CAFAB-D598-4594-BFC2-D31D2F6BA516@oclc.org>
This conversation, like many on such a list as this, started off discussing the basic proposal and then veered off at a significant tangent - in this case we ended up having a very useful discussion about the use and need for additionalType.

Now that tangential conversation has died away, I would like to bring us back on topic ;-)

I would like to recommend the Audiobook proposal <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Audiobook> for adoption.

~Richard.


On 30 Sep 2013, at 22:36, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 9/30/13 12:27 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
>> 
>> It is purely another way of writing rdf:type. Any pair of things that
>> are related by rdf:type could equally well be described as being
>> related by schema:additionalType.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Dan. I didn't realize that additionalType had the sense of rdf:type. Then I second Richard Wallis' question on how the previous discussion of declaring multiple itemtypes relates to additionalType. Or are we providing equal but varied approaches that essentially have the same result? Could that lead to confusion?
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> In the sense that RDF's
>> types/classes are useful for categorisation, then so is this
>> mechanism. But maybe there's a subtle difference in how you're using
>> the word 'categorize' that I'm not picking up on?
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 10:47:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC