RE: Content-Carrier Proposal

+1

Trying to keep content and carrier as separate entities relate by an
"encoding" property is pretty weird. Sure, there is a subatomic space
between the words (content) and the paper (carrier) in the book I'm
holding, but hardly anyone needs to think of it that way.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Dawson [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:11 AM
> To: Wallis,Richard
> Cc: Heuvelmann, Reinhold; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Content-Carrier Proposal
> 
> Yes, this. I was actually having this conversation yesterday after the
> W3C ebook conference.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > On 13/02/2013 14:38, "Heuvelmann, Reinhold" <R.Heuvelmann@dnb.de>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 17:01:42 UTC