- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:11:56 +0100
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Hi Dan, Thanks for all this work! >> 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. Yes, it's much better this way! startDate and endDate would look awkward defined for Periodical-related classes anyway. I guess their scope is much wider. And am a bit surprised they don't exist yet in schema.org. OK, starting the research: - there's startDate and endDate on (separately!) http://schema.org/Season and http://schema.org/Series, http://schema.org/Event - there's startTime and endTime on http://schema.org/Action Perhaps some homogeneization could help (though I suspect it's hard to change names on established classes). > I've adjusted the proposal > accordingly (and made the issues in the PeriodicalVolume example > actually link to the volume in question... heh). OK! Antoine
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 09:12:25 UTC