- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:24:14 -0800
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Yes, to which of Owen's questions? That this is what we are doing: creating a map from MARC or ONIX? Or Improving html markup to include structured data? kc On 2/25/13 11:06 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote: > Yes. > > ~Richard > > > On 25 Feb 2013, at 22:27, "Owen Stephens" <owen@ostephens.com > <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>> wrote: > >> Is this what we are doing though? In terms of schema.org >> <http://schema.org> the question I think we need to consider is not >> 'how to map MARC' but 'how to improve the html markup to include >> structured data'. >> >> I'd agree that this sets the bar rather low. But I thought that was >> the point? >> >> Owen >> >> Owen Stephens >> Owen Stephens Consulting >> Web: http://www.ostephens.com >> Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com> >> Telephone: 0121 288 6936 >> >> On 25 Feb 2013, at 17:46, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org >> <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>> wrote: >> >>> Mapping from a detailed data format, such as Marc or ONIX, to a generic >>> vocabulary such as Schema is by definition lossy. As a community we >>> need to >>> accept that, whilst giving good justification (by our proposals) as >>> to why >>> it is [currently] too lossy. >> -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 14:24:43 UTC