- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:16:31 +0000
- To: <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Proposal page updated to reflect this. ~Richard. On 04/02/2013 16:14, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote: > > 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 16:16:59 UTC