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

Sounds good!
Note that I was not suggesting that it should be removed from everything. It as really the one link Collection>Issue that got me started about this... I'm more comfortable with Collection>Periodical. But as you both suggest, perhaps it's better to focus everywhere on the core of the business, and see where the fancy inferences really lies, later.

Note that on the new proposal (which seems otherwise quite good at first glance!) I'm surprised by the sub-class definition "Periodical > PeriodicalVolume" . Why would every volume be a periodical?

Best,

Antoine

On 12/5/13 7:32 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 21:41:14 UTC