- From: Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:58:12 +0000
- To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Its also his twitter id. On 01/08/2013 17:53, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >He's often called "DanBri", so we can use that. :-) > >kc > >On 8/1/13 9:47 AM, Dan Scott wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/1/13 9:25 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> In the end what we submit to schema.org could be a dual proposal: we >>>> list 'element requirement' and for each of them we indicate what would >>>> be needed, either for re-use existing elements (and thus generalize >>>> their definition) or add new ones. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, Antoine, that's what I was thinking as well. It would probably >>>not >>> be an actual proposal, like our others, but more of a "preview" to see >>>how >>> the community responds to the options. >>> >>> Could we do this with what we have already? I think that would mean >>>adding >>> Dan's proposal to our Holdings page. It would be nice to show the two >>> side-by-side -- a kind of comparison table. >> >> I'm certainly willing to go ahead and do that; my email & examples can >> be a bit hard to work through as is. >> >> Aside: I wonder if we should refer to Dan Brickley as "Dan[prime]" and >> to myself as "the other Dan" :) >> > >-- >Karen Coyle >kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >ph: 1-510-540-7596 >m: 1-510-435-8234 >skype: kcoylenet > >
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:58:44 UTC