Re: "citation" property needed on ScholarlyArticle

On 13/02/2013 10:18, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:

> +1 of support from me for promoting citation from
> MedicalScholarlyArticle to ScholarlyArticle.
> 
> I think you could probably push it even further up to Article, and
> also adding it to Book. Unfortunately, I suspect it doesn't belong in
> CreativeWork, since paintings, diets and software don't typically cite
> things. But maybe I'm not squinting correctly :-)

I'm not so sure that you would have 'audio' in a painting, or
contentLocation is particularly relevant to software.

Could citation be used for paintings that include representations of other
paintings?

I would suggest that citation may be relevant in enough of CreativeWork's
sub-types for it to be one of those properties that would be useful to many,
but not all.  The alternative would be to sprinkle it into only some of the
sub-types, a process that no doubt at a later date we would discover will
have missed something.

~Richard.




On 13/02/2013 10:19, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:

> Hi Alf,
> 
> I haven't looked at your mark-up examples yet, but I note that the
> Schema.org documentation has this note "Candidate for promotion to
> ScholarlyArticle" on citation in MedicalScholarlyArticle
> <http://schema.org/MedicalScholarlyArticle>.
> 
> Our approach could be to just support that.
> 
> The question I have is - is it only scholarly articles that can cite other
> creative works?  What about books, blogs, etc.  Maybe the property could be
> best promoted to CreativeWork.
>  
> Thoughts anyone.
> 
> ~Richard.
> 
> 
> On 13/02/2013 09:16, "Alf Eaton" <eaton.alf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Done: http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Citation
>> 
>> I'm still not quite sure how the combination of itemref + itemscope
>> works in practise, so the example might need some tweaking.
>> 
>> Alf
>> 
>> On 12 February 2013 23:09, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Alf,
>>> 
>>> Create a proposal on the group wiki.
>>> 
>>> If you follow the pattern of other potential proposals on the Wiki
>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>  -
>>> commonEndeavor is a good template to follow, as that also proposes the
>>> addition of a single property to an existing Schema type.
>>> 
>>> If the consensus of the group is in agreement we can propose it with all the
>>> other that we agree upon in the next few months.
>>> 
>>> ~Richard.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/02/2013 17:18, "Alf Eaton" <eaton.alf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In the current <http://schema.org/MedicalScholarlyArticle> model, the
>>>> property "citation" is marked as a candidate for promotion up to
>>>> <http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle>.
>>>> 
>>>> This seems perfectly reasonable, and I'd like to be able to make use of it.
>>>> 
>>>> How do we go about getting the schema altered to that the "citation"
>>>> property is also available on <http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle>?
>>>> 
>>>> Alf
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 10:36:50 UTC