Re: "citation" property needed on ScholarlyArticle

A good suggestion worth discussing - in the meeting next Tuesday?

It would test the process, plus it would provide community backing to Alf's
proposal.  Experience from this initial simple proposal will help us shape
the way we group and submit future proposals.

~Richard.


On 14/02/2013 20:23, "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].
> 
> //Ed
> 
> [1] http://schema.org/MedicalScholarlyArticle
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
> 
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Alf Eaton <eaton.alf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 February 2013 13:24, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>>>> Who should now forward this proposal to the public-vocabs list and the
>>>> WebSchemas wiki?
>>> 
>>> There are two options for that.
>>> 
>>> 1. You can submit it directly to the public-vocabs list and WebSchemas wiki
>>> now as an individual.
>>> 
>>> 2. It can be submitted along with the other proposals we agree in this
>>> group.  The benefit of this is that it will be supported by a group of
>>> domain interested people/organisations and form part of a considered set of
>>> proposals to make Schema more applicable to bibliographic resources.
>>> 
>>> I would hope to draw together that set of proposals for submission in the
>>> not too distant future - something I want to discuss in the next meeting
>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219>
>> 
>> Ok, I'll wait to see what happens in the meeting - if the expected
>> group submission is not too far in the distant future it can wait to
>> be submitted with the other proposals.
>> 
>> Alf
>

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 20:54:30 UTC