Re: proposal just for article

Karen, Dan, et al.,

I really like this latest article proposal. I like having the ability to
say that I'm marking up a citation, that it's part of this publication, and
also express something about enumeration. It provides a usable mechanism to
do so without modeling the particular issuance / volume / issue /
collection / aggregation / container / whatever, but also doesn't preclude
alternate representations that would put the volume and issue at a
container level entity.

I also wish to apologize for my combative tone in my earlier email to
Karen, particularly given that I don't have the time to put in the hard
work hashing out the details of how to reconcile and render compatible the
3 or 4 (or 5?) different proposals on the table. I really don't think
they're that far apart. I wish I had more bandwidth to work on it.

Given that I don't I believe it's probably best that I back out of the
conversation now and not join tomorrow's call.

Regrets for that, and thank you all for the work you've put in on this.

-Corey


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Karen Coyle <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
>
> 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 http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>


-- 
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
212.998.2479
corey.harper@nyu.edu