On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote: > >> That (using http:// <http://schema.org/contributor>schema.org >> <http://schema.org/contributor>/contributor >> <http://schema.org/contributor>, using a Role to offer the particulars) >> is roughly the approach I had been aiming for since running into a similar >> challenge in the comics proposal that would have added inker, penciler, >> cover artist, letterer, and sundry other contributor roles; similarly with >> movies and the many associated contributor roles you find in the credits. >> >> So hopefully the answer is "yes"? >> > > I was imagining just that. Otherwise, we will have to add hyper-specific > types or CreativeWork will become a giant grab bag of properties. > I agree. It seems reasonable to consider schema:contributor as equivalent to dcterms:contributor, which has been used in this manner in various contexts for quite some time (see e.g. LoC:s relators – albeit they use the less specific dc11:contributor [1]). See also the old proposal for Schema-DC mappings [2]. Cheers, Niklas [1]: http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators [2]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dcmi/schema.org/master/mappings_schema.org.xml > - Vicki > > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com > >
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 15:22:25 UTC