Re: proposal just for article

Dan, I like the carrot-and-stick approach to that. - kc

On 12/10/13, 2:18 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> (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.)
>
> Agreed, but as noted previously I was adopting the approach used by
> Series/Season/Episode as a means of not building too many
> prerequisites into the proposal. Managing scope and all that.
>
> A strategy I've been musing about, though, was to bring forward the
> proposal to public-vocabs with the full set of partOf*/has*
> properties, but mention something like "Note that this introduces 6
> new hasPart/partOf* properties, and that's only likely to grow over
> time; we also happen to have this Collection proposal [1] that would
> solve this problem generally. Wouldn't that be nice? Would you like to
> see an alternate version of this proposal that uses Collection?"
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 22:35:00 UTC