- From: Kevin Ford <kefo@3windmills.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:48:33 -0500
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
I vote to just "do it." I think that if multiple communities request the same or similar extensions (issueNumber, numberOfPages, etc) it enforces the notion that these additions a more broadly desirable than if they just come from one community. Yours, Kevin On 11/07/2012 12:19 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > This is great. Do we have a way to collaborate with them on this? Or do > we just "do it"? > > kc > > On 11/7/12 7:56 AM, Owen Stephens wrote: >> Some stuff under the Comics and Periodical schema proposal may be >> relevant? >> >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/PeriodicalsComics >> >> Owen >> >> Owen Stephens >> Owen Stephens Consulting >> Web: http://www.ostephens.com >> Email: owen@ostephens.com >> Telephone: 0121 288 6936 >> >> On 7 Nov 2012, at 15:39, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> Going beyond library catalog data (which is what I believe first >>> motivated the creation of this group?) to a more general concept of >>> bibliographic data and appropriate copy means that schema.org will >>> need those key elements that are used to identify journal articles: >>> >>> ISSN >>> journal title >>> volume >>> number >>> first page >>> (others?) >>> >>> I must admit that I am rather puzzled by the fact that >>> http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle doesn't have these (nor does >>> MedicalArticle) -- to me they seem so obvious. Should we add this use >>> case? >>> >>> kc >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet >>> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:47:38 UTC