- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:45:26 +0000
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Karen, As the discussions on work-instance & commonEndeavor have past its peak recently, I agree that we should try to move on. In the spirit of "iterative approach to helping make schema.org better for bibliographic data -- instead of a waterfall model" as suggested by Ed recently - I believe that they should be moved to a state of final agreement and preparation for proposal to public-vocabs. Content-carrier is a little different as there are some fundamental modelling approaches that we are discussing here that I think will influence how we deal with holdings - if we are to be consistent. What might be called the additionalType issue needs some consensus around it. By taking some leads from WebPage, Comics, etc., I agree that collection 'should' not be too controversial. It is issues such as these I was hoping to surface in the ' Timescale for submissions to public_vocabs' agenda item. ~Richard. On 16/02/2013 14:50, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > I looked at the agenda, and I would like to suggest putting > work-instance, commonEndeavor, and content-carrier on the back burner, > but add Library Holdings, which I think is one of the key bits of > missing information that we need to address. I also want to say that I > think that "collection" is a no-brainer and we shouldn't have to spend > much time on it. > > kc > > On 2/15/13 6:29 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> Just a reminder that our February meeting is on Tuesday, usual time, >> joining details here: >> >> _http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219 >> _ >> Hear you there. >> >> ~Richard. >>
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 15:46:10 UTC