Re: "citation" property needed on ScholarlyArticle

Ok, from my neutral perspective it sounds like there are some people who
feel strongly about adding citation to CreativeWork. Can someone who
understands the process update the proposal and forwrard it on to where it
needs to go? I am glad that we aren't stuck on adding it only to
ScholarlyArticle. :-)

//Ed

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> +1.
> My God what are we afraid of? That people would put citations on some
> Creative Work for which some law (yet to be determined) says it's not
> allowed? I just really don't see why we would care about that. If people
> want to have citations on anything creative (I'm currently staring at a
> mousepad that kind of cite a movie) that's their business, and I really
> can't think of any case where it would actually break anything in a
> schema.org scenario.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
>  Part 1. Add it to CreativeWork, but if that is not acceptable Part 2 -
>> add it to a list of CreativeWork sub-types.
>>
>> I agree KISS is very important.
>> Worth the try.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shlomo
>>
>> Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 13:27
>> To: Ed Summers
>> Cc: Alf Eaton; public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> Subject: 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>