Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> In principle I agree with you - it is a kludge of a solution and Microdata
> could be improved by the ability to support multiple type URIs.

My reading of the HTML 5 Microdata spec is that multiple types are allowed:

  The itemtype attribute, if specified, must have a value that is an
  unordered set of unique space-separated tokens that are
  case-sensitive, each of which is a valid URL that is an absolute
  URL, and all of which are defined to use the same vocabulary.
  The attribute's value must have at least one token. [1]

> The original 'Library' extension proposal that accompanied the OCLC WorldCat
> linked data release last year, highlighted some of the carrier types
> (catalogued by libraries which contribute records to WorldCat) that were
> missing from Schema.  I am confident that that proposal will be superseded
> by recommendations from this group.

If memory serves it highlighted all of the carrier types, or at least
a lot more than I would have, which is something I will resist doing
in schema.org. If OCLC wants to publish a comprehensive list of
carrier types for use in microdata and RDFa that seems fine. But
baking all of that into schema.org is not palatable for me, especially
given the overlap with types that are already present. Is it too
difficult for us to itemize which types are not present in schema.org
that we need to have for expected use of bibliographic data? Can we
take lossless transformation of MARC to schema.org off the table?

//Ed

[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#attr-itemtype

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:13:26 UTC