Re: "citation" property needed on ScholarlyArticle

I'm neutral too - citation is an obvious candidate for adding to several
sub-types of CreativeWork - there is more than one way to achieve that.

However, I am also for simplicity. Adding it to CreativeWork would be the
simplest way to achieve it.

To cover the bases, I suggest our proposal could be in two parts - if we
agree.  Part 1. Add it to CreativeWork, but if that is not acceptable Part 2
- add it to a list of CreativeWork sub-types.

As to how it works - individuals or groups like this one make proposal(s) to
the public-vocabs list and the WebSchemas wiki - that group then either
accepts, makes suggestions for modification, rejects, but hopefully does not
ignore them.  If the do get accepted the organisations behind Schema.org
commit to, over time, recognise them in their processing.

~Richard.


On 13/02/2013 11:07, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
> wrote:
>> I'm not so sure that you would have 'audio' in a painting,
> 
> Yes, I'm not sure that makes sense. Are you using that strangeness as
> an argument for adding citation to Creative Work? I'm not sure just
> because something seems weird is an excuse to make it weirder...
> 
>> or contentLocation is particularly relevant to software.
> 
> Software can be physically instantiated (say on a CD or diskette) and
> have a location, so I don't see this as a problem myself.
> 
>> Could citation be used for paintings that include representations of other
>> paintings?
> 
> I guess it could. It seems like a corner case though, which is not
> exactly schema.org's strength.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I am neutral about this, since I don't really understand how
> schema.org is managed...which is Alf's main question I think.
> 
> //Ed
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:28:53 UTC