Re: Removing "Collection" from the Periodical & Comics proposal

As I replied to Antoine in another email, we may want to reserve 
collection for the archival meaning of that term, or at least keep it 
friendly to archives. I fear that intermingling collection with 
periodical could stand in the way of that. So +1 to removing Collection 
from the Periodical proposal, and keeping it stand-alone for now.

kc

On 12/5/13 8:31 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
> In short, TVSeries / TVSeason / TVEpisode effectively model the
> "hasPart" and "isPartOf" relationships found in our Collection
> proposal [1] without inheriting from Collection.
>
> In the short term, I will remove "Collection" from the Periodicals /
> Comics hierarchy. This will reduce the friction that might happen if
> we attempt to pull "Collection" into the Periodicals & Comics
> proposal.
>
> I suspect this would also make Antoine happier, as it would be
> conceptually cleaner and certainly more rigorous [2]
>
> This doesn't mean that "Collection" is dead. It just means (I think)
> that if it is adopted in some form, we will be able to apply
> subPropertyOf relationships to the hasPart / isPartOf properties
> throughout schema.org.
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection
> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Nov/0087.html
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 18:33:25 UTC