Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

Karen, I think my motivation is maybe not the most beneficial, but somehat stemming from laziness, and definitely from the experience of frustration, as I have invested some time in collecting hierarchies of resource types, based on MARC, and RDA, and ONIX, and some other approaches.  And each one is doing it differently, sometimes only slightly, sometimes totally.

I still think that the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization has its merits as a framework, we don't have anything better, and I do admire the efforts.  But when I see that RDA on the one hand and ISBD Area 0 on the other hand use the framework, and they combine the parts in a different way, resulting in different categories, so that afterwards the ends have to be brought together by mapping efforts -- this is not the best way.

Yes, the distinction between Content/Concept and Carrier/Thing is a valid one (a possible criterion for me is "can you destroy it?"), but sometimes the lines are blurry.  And there are other "dimensions", as mode of issuance, or the way a librarian looks at a "thing".

In other words:  There doesn't seem to be a Dewey-style way for resource categorization, which would be a top-level distinction, with a clean and one-way hierarchy down to the single types.

Regarding schema . org, I think I'm only talking about the sub-classes of CreativeWork, as in the full Type Hierarchy.  I'm fine with the expected types, and the additionalTypes as well.

Enough said about my emotions  :-)

Thank you ,

Reinhold


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 16:39
An: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Content-Carrier Proposal

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 19:21:19 UTC