Re: proposal just for article

Sounds good Niklas. Do you want to add "justARticle2" to the wiki?

I do get somewhat nervous about the partOf because we don't always know 
for sure what is part of what. But maybe if you include some examples in 
your proposal we can see how that goes.

The reason I included types for issues and volumes is that there were 
comments that the volume and issue numbers need a home -- a class. If 
Periodical can't be that class, then what is? Dan used Issuance as a 
class, I believe to get around that. So it seems that the volume number 
needs to be a property of the volume, and the issue number needs to be a 
property of the issue. If you can find another place for them, that's 
great. I would like for volume number to be available both to books and 
periodicals.

And it is close to the original -- although the original had issuance. 
But the fact of being reduced, to me, is the key point -- and if it can 
be both reduced AND compatible with the full proposal, then I'll be very 
happy.

kc

On 12/10/13, 1:58 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> There are seven distinct items here [1] – shouldn't they be linked
> together (using e.g. partOf)? Also, some items can be identified as the
> same (using the pattern I showed earlier, in both RDFa and microdata).
>
> Since this proposal defines types for both issues and volumes, doesn't
> it end up being very close to the original proposal? Albeit with a
> reduced set of properties.
>
> (And I'd like to reduce the set of properties where possible. I prefer
> to use partOf/hasPart instead of distinct properties for each possible
> range, unless required by use cases. Externally linked parts/containers
> can be typed too, to mitigate the risk of consumers not getting the
> nature of the composition.)
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
> [1]:
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004ed34f803aa5bb45ed9a29856636c
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com
> <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Big Awesome
>     +1
>
>     Thanks for this Karen !
>
>     And Schema.org has needed an generic Intangible class for Pagination
>     for some time now that is not sequestered in CollectionPage or
>     WebPage types for that matter.
>
>     FYI, the flowers-roots (bottom-up) approach is really the best for
>     Schema.org development and proposals.
>     Classes and Types (roots) can develop easily from the needed
>     properties that are collected and gathered (flowers).
>
>     Hope you like that analogy, and hang in there, there will probably
>     be many more bumpy rides as you guys go along, I'm sure. :-)
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>     <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>         I have done a new (and probably my last) proposal that only
>         covers article markup, leaving aside the description of
>         periodicals qua periodicals and any information about volumes
>         and issues except for the numbering needed to locate the article.
>
>         http://www.w3.org/community/__schemabibex/wiki/Article
>         <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Article>
>
>         You can add any alternatives you prefer to this proposal, or
>         make other proposals if you see this differently.
>
>         kc
>         --
>         Karen Coyle
>         kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>         m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>         skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     -Thad
>     +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>     Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 22:14:00 UTC