Re: "citation" property needed on ScholarlyArticle

I've updated the proposal on the wiki to include CreativeWork:
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Citation

On 13 February 2013 12:55, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 13:23:48 UTC