Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

Outside the library world, we refer to it as "content" and "container" -
so I don't think it's too far off.

On 2/3/13 3:30 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>Richard,
>
>Thanks for starting this. My first comment is that we need some good
>definitions of "content" and "carrier." It's fairly common terminology
>in the library world but not beyond.
>
>My second is that this links to a more general discussion I have been
>thinking of starting on the general vocab list, which is about
>"re-usable bits and facets." The content and carrier concepts are almost
>universals and I can imagine "carrier" becoming a re-usable facet
>available to any schemas that fine it useful. (Ditto things like
>"location"). The library "content & carrier" could become a focus for
>talking about how truly non-specific these concepts are and why the
>creation of freely available facets could aid in metadata development.
>
>kc
>
>On 2/2/13 1:04 PM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have just added a Content-Carrier proposal to the Wiki.
>>
>> It does not propose extension of the vocabulary as such, but I have
>> linked it from the Vocabulary Proposals page
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals> as
>> it is a proposal as to a recommended way to apply the current vocabulary
>> to address an issue that concerns this group.
>>
>>
>> ~Richard.
>
>-- 
>Karen Coyle
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>ph: 1-510-540-7596
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet
>

Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 20:41:52 UTC