- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:38:42 -0600
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Reinhold, are you referring to the additionalTypes? Or are you referring to the sub-classes of CreativeWork? If the latter, schema.org seems to be all over the place. If you look at the full list, there are lots of "types" that have no additional data elements. I admit that I'm not sure what schema.org intends, but that seems to be the practice: if you have a different "thing" you create a new schema. I find it odd. Anyway, maybe you could enlarge a bit on what you see as the better solution? kc On 2/13/13 8:38 AM, Heuvelmann, Reinhold wrote: > In the whole business of resource categorization, I sometimes lean toward a flat solution. So instead of building up hierarchies of broad distinctions, with narrower subtypes, and even narrower sub-subtypes, etc. -- why not have single types, with definitions as clear as possible, but without too many implications or restrictions (which a different user or community would resist)? > > And using these flat types is just assigning and adding whatever fits, without having to think too much about parents, children, siblings, or overlaps etc. > > My 2 ct. > > Reinhold > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 15:39:15 UTC