Re: Reminder - next Schema Bib Extend Group meeting is on Tuesday

Richard, I don't see any relationship between content/carrier and 
holdings. My view of holdings is to mark up the elements that are common 
to library holdings displays:

location
call number
availability

Then there is the question of serial holdings, which for the moment we 
may need to treat simply as a display of "owns" which is already in the 
Organization schema.

I see this as a fairly simple markup for starters, although more could 
be added later.

I realize that holdings may not seem terribly relevant to OCLC since 
WorldCat outsources that to the individual library catalogs that it 
points to, but for most libraries I would contend that holdings is the 
KEY information that they have to offer. I think it should be moved up 
in our priority list.

kc

On 2/16/13 7:45 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 16:10:41 UTC