Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

Jeff, that would make sense, if schema.org were organized that way, but 
for example the Movie schema makes use of:
    Thing > CreativeWork > MediaObject

to indicate DVD/BlueRay, etc.[1] And I can't immediately tell how you 
would connect "Movie" as content and "Event" for an in-theater showing. 
So I suspect that it would take quite a bit of revising to get content 
and carrier clearly delineated in schema.org.

And, Laura, I didn't mean "streaming groceries" -- I meant metadata 
about groceries. Basically, you can have metadata about anything you can 
sell online - clothes, dog food, paper and pencils, anything. 
"Packaging" may (or may not) fall under the "carrier" category.

kc
[1] But note that it does not make use of:
   Thing > CreativeWork > MediaObject > VideoObject



On 2/3/13 2:12 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> In schema.org <http://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
> <mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Re: Content-Carrier Proposal
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>> >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> >>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> >>> skype: kcoylenet
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karen Coyle
>> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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

Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 23:26:29 UTC