Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

In schema.org, the content side of the equation can be handled by the schema:CreativeWork branch of the taxonomy and the carrier can be handled by the schema:Product branch.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2013, at 5:01 PM, "LAURA DAWSON" <ljndawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> When we start streaming groceries, I will give up making sense of metadata entirely.
> 
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
> > The question is: what about other industries? Music? Movie publishers? Software? Games? Groceries? I'm trying to think as broadly as possible.
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On 2/3/13 12:41 PM, Laura Dawson wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
> 
>