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

> 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.

Thanks for the +1, Karen - it definitely helps to have confirmation
that I'm on the right track.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> 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.

*nod*

> 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?

Good question. I had inherited from Periodical because I wanted most
of the properties (startDate, endDate, hasPeriodicalIssue) but it's
cleaner to just expand the domain of those properties than to suggest
that a volume is a kind of Periodical. I've adjusted the proposal
accordingly (and made the issues in the PeriodicalVolume example
actually link to the volume in question... heh).

Thanks,
Dan

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 04:22:10 UTC