- From: Dan Scott <dscott@laurentian.ca>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:48:47 -0500
- To: "Alf Eaton" <eaton.alf@gmail.com>,"Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com>
- Cc: "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
>>> On 2/14/2013 at 03:23 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote: > I would like to see us use Alf's proposal as an end-to-end test of the > process. I say this for a few reasons: > > * It should be uncontroversial since it was originally proposed by the > schema.org creators themselves, as noted in the documentation [1] > * It is a fairly small change, and we should be able to get get > agreement about it as a group. If we can't agree about this, I suspect > we won't be able to agree about anything. Also, we don't really know > what "agreement" means in practice yet. > * If we wait to submit all of our changes at once we may overwhelm the > schema.org community with too many changes at one time, and impede a > relatively simple fix from being done. > * If we wait to submit all of our changes at once Alf can't start > using citation in the real-world-work he is no doubt doing, which > would help spread the use of the schema.org vocabularies. > > In general I'd like to see us take an iterative approach to helping > make schema.org better for bibliographic data -- instead of a > waterfall model [2]. +1
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 20:49:35 UTC