Re: Strategy for marking sections as "draft / abandoned / recommended by schemabibex / published at schema.org"?

Good ideas both.

I’ll look into enhancing the [minimal] labelling we have.

~Richard

On 4 Feb 2014, at 00:16, Henry Andrews <hha1@cornell.edu<mailto:hha1@cornell.edu>> wrote:

I also really like how the IETF RFC tool has a color bar at the top indicating the status (you can click on the bar to get the key to the colors).
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

That way it is more obvious even if you don't remember to look for the right text field.

cheers,
-henry

________________________________
From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com<mailto:denials@gmail.com>>
To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>" <public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 10:27 AM
Subject: Strategy for marking sections as "draft / abandoned / recommended by schemabibex / published at schema.org<http://schema.org>"?

Hello:

Per Diane Hillman's blog post at
http://managemetadata.com/blog/2014/02/03/talking-points-report/ do we
want to standardize how we're publishing our work on the wiki? Just as
Diane was led down the wrong path initially with multipe pages around
holdings, I could envision other similar confusion in the future over
our historical article/periodical pages, etc.

I propose that we clearly mark at the top of each page the status of
the page; something like:

Status (<date>): <status>

Where <status> could be one of:

* "Draft"
* "Abandoned"
* "Recommended by Schema BibEx (best practice)"
* "Recommended by Schema BibEx (schema.org<http://schema.org> extension)"
* "Published schema.org<http://schema.org> extension"

Perhaps with some mediawiki-savvy way of tagging the page, as well, so
that we can survey the pages. (I'm not all that familiar with
mediawiki, so suggestions welcome!)

Thanks,
Dan