- From: Randall Leeds <randall@bleeds.info>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:42:27 +0000
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, "Denenberg, Ray" <rden@loc.gov>
- Cc: Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAL6JQi_ryj4ksqWZtGKcdf0iXtV2wtGA-EqaeruAuWBXvKpaQ@mail.gmail.com>
We should at the least float the proposal. If that's the only obvious shortcoming for us, seems like clearly we should ask. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 17:34 Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: > > Courtesy of Dan Scott, we could simply propose a new class in schema.org. > Seems like it would be useful outside of this work... > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Mar/0113.html > > Rob > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote: > >> Please, no. let’s just define the class oa:Text. >> >> >> >> Ray >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Jacob >> Jett >> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 2:12 PM >> *To:* Web Annotation >> *Subject:* Re: Proposal: Replace dctypes with schema.org >> >> >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> >> >> This tentatively looks good. With regards to text, we'd likely to have to >> use the extremely abstract schema:CreativeWork class. We'd might want to >> further clarify using the predicate-object combo of "schema:genre >> schema:Text" to make an assertion about the Creative Work. This does seem >> more modern than Dublin Core but I do wonder if it is actually better. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Jacob >> >> >> >> >> _____________________________________________________ >> >> Jacob Jett >> Research Assistant >> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship >> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science >> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA >> (217) 244-2164 >> jjett2@illinois.edu >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> As discussed on the call on Wednesday, we should make a change to the >> list of types for body and target at least to replace Image with >> StillImage. A further suggestion was that we should consider schema.org >> classes as more modern and likely to be better integrated with other >> systems. >> >> >> >> It would also give us easy classes for Code, SoftwareApplication, Game, >> WebPage... but there isn't one (that I can find) for generic Textual >> content. schema:Text is a datatype, rather than a class for resources. >> >> >> >> Thus the list maps currently as: >> >> >> >> Dataset --> schema:Dataset >> >> StillImage --> schema:ImageObject >> >> MovingImage --> schema:VideoObject >> >> Sound --> schema:AudioObject >> >> Text --> :( >> >> >> >> We could be more explicit with our typing for Text: >> >> >> >> oa:Tag when the body is a tag. >> >> oa:SemanticTag when it's a semantic tag >> >> schema:Comment when it's a comment [w/ oa:commenting] >> >> schema:Review when the body is a review >> >> >> >> schema:WebPage when the body/target is a full webpage >> >> schema:WebPageElement when the body/target is part of a page >> >> >> And then leave anything beyond those to further communities to define? >> Is there anything in our current set of use cases that would fall out side >> of the above? >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Rob >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Rob Sanderson >> >> Information Standards Advocate >> >> Digital Library Systems and Services >> >> Stanford, CA 94305 >> >> >> > > > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Information Standards Advocate > Digital Library Systems and Services > Stanford, CA 94305 >
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 22:42:56 UTC