- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:14:55 +0000
- To: <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On 04/02/2013 14:28, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Richard, I think that productontology.org can be ONE source of URIs, but > definitely not the only one. Library data already has definitions of > content and carrier (with URIs) [1], and publishers have their own in > ONIX. > [1] 336 - Content Type > http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/45.html > 337 - Media Type > http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/37.html > 338 - Carrier Type > http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html Yes Karen you are right to call me out on this. As a proponent of the Linked Data distributed data principles, I should know better than even suggest a single source of identifiers. Note to self: Don't draft proposals in airport lounges. I also agree that within a community of practice it may be desirable to include the URI for the nearest productontology.org "thing", so that those outside that community can usefully identify those types of things. Having said that, I believe that productontology.org should also be recommended as a significant source of such identifiers, not just for the bibliographic community but for all who need URIs for types of resources. I agree that the Wikipedia definition of a book could do with a little improvement, but that's the joy of Wikipedia - if you think a description could do with improvement you can just go ahead and improve it. There is also a distinction between Wikipedia descriptions and the URIs derived from them in dbpedia and productontology. One is an identifier for the concept, the other is the current community consensus of the description of it. After all at one time they locked down the George W Bush page because of too much disagreement, yet the dbpedia URI still identified the person they were disagreeing about. ~Richard. >> >> Additional type was not in the original Schema spec, being introduced a >> year later to add to microdata an ability, that comes by default with >> RDFa, to replicate a real world need for multiple types. Because of >> this we have a legacy of individual solutions, such as MediaObject, >> which will cause some initial confusion as this more general approach >> gets adopted. >> >> ~Richard. >> >> On 03/02/2013 23:57, "Niklas Lindström" <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> But I figure that the focus here is to find some minimal >> indication of this distinction via some properties on the same >> (overloaded) resource to start with. That should be usable too. >> >> .. I may have made my own mess of conflations here of course, e.g. by >> equating container and manifestation. But I trust you to set me >> straight. ;) >> >> Cheers, >> Niklas >> >> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 16:15:24 UTC