Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

Note that schema:MediaObject was introduced before the GoodRelations vocabulary was integrated. We shouldn't have to feel bad about ignoring older parts of the schema.org model that are inferior.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:26 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 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
>