Remarks on process and workload

Hi all

On 12/11/13 1:17 AM, Corey A Harper wrote:
> [...] 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.


I'm on a similar position.

When we started the group I had the feeling that this was about the mapping of existing data (and the vocabularies that go with them) to schema.org, possibly suggesting extensions to schema.org when there was a big miss there.

In this respect one recent addition to the Periodical thread, i.e. trying to connect to Bibo, fits quite well.

But the entire discussion, where people think of what periodicals/volumes are, and then compare it to what they are in an already existing and complete approach (comics), then try to map to an existing ontology (Bibo) and then question again what periodicals and volume and citations are, that's just too much.

To be clear: I respect very much the work being done. And I'm sure it is useful to the community in the end. It's just that I too don't have the time to contribute that much, unfortunately.

Best,

Antoine

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 08:35:08 UTC