Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

Karen, I know, I just had this vision of Star Trek-like replicators making
us food out of streaming data.

On 2/3/13 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

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 02:06:17 UTC