- From: Christoph, Pascal <christoph@hbz-nrw.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:44:45 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Am 15.09.2013 17:15 schrieb Antoine Isaac : > The round-up of sites sounds like a great idea, Karen! The comparison may find that the wikidata book task force[0] misses a "dcterms:subject" on the work level. This is what at least Etienne and me is thinking.[1] Not sure if my proposal "main category topic"[0] is correct - what do you think? pascal [0]https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force [1]https://twitter.com/dr0ide/status/379496420870328320 > A. > >> Thanks, Antoine. I hadn't seen this. I note that they refer to "Work" and "Edition" which is also the terminology used by Open Library. (Plus they have "item" for individual books, like rare books.) I've begun a (hopefully short) round-up of bibliographic sites to see what levels of abstraction they use, and what they call them. This fits into that nicely. >> >> kc >> >> On 9/15/13 2:58 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> This may have been sent to the list before, but in case... >>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Books_task_force >>> >>> I believe this can be a quite useful reference in terms of use case. >>> These are properties that somehow reflect user needs, it's likely that >>> it would end expressed in schema.org one day. >>> >>> Would it be a task for this group to have a look at this schema, and >>> flag any missing properties to schema.org? >>> >>> Note that it could also bring input for our 'work' debate. They have >>> only two levels, work and edition. Apparently they regard the edition to >>> be either the expression or manifestion (or both of them in fact), and >>> the link between the edition and the work is simply 'edition of'. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 15:45:34 UTC