Re: Changes vs. new element

It might work as an approach, however the examples would have to be clear,
easy to compare, and stripped of most library-ese.  Most folks have no
idea what a holding, shelf location or call number is.

I suspect that we will just be transferring the conversation from one list
to another and creating noise for many on the public-vocabs list.

I think we need to work through and document some examples before doing
that.



~Richard.


On 01/08/2013 17:47, "Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com> 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" :)
>
>

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:05:25 UTC