W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Series

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:58:18 +0100
Message-ID: <539AD94A.8020906@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Definitely series should be at a higher level. However, what is the 
series value? Some series have an actual name, some are a list of things 
with their own names, but there is no name for the whole. Does series 
imply a named list? What would then be done with un-named lists?


kc

On 6/13/14, 10:58 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> A couple of recent threads have highlighted the current very
> TV/Radio-ness of the Series <http://schema.org/Series> Type.  Hardly
> surprising considering the proposal it came from.
>
> It seems that it would be better if Series became a generic Type with
> more focussed sub-types such as TVSeries, RadioSeries, GameSeries,
> MovieSeries, LiterarySeries, etc.
>
> Looking at the current TV/Radio Series structure, this might be best
> handled by the introduction of a BroadcastSeries Type to serve the
> current purpose of Series, which then would be replaced by a more
> generic Series Type definition:
>
>     CreativeWork>Series>BroadcastSeries>TVSeries
>     CreativeWork>Series>BroadcastSeries>RadioSeries
>     CreativeWork>Series>LiterarySeries
>     CreativeWork>Series>MovieSeries
>     CreativeWork>Series>>GameSeries
>     etc.
>
>
>
> ~Richard
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 10:58:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC