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

As some who lived through the DCMI discussions on similar matters many
moons ago (and the one whose experience sparked these discussions), I
should point out that for a user, knowing that a document has been
deprecated is only half the problem. The rest of it is "if this is a dead
end, where should I be instead?".

Diane


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:

>  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> 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>
> *To:* "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <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"?
>
> 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 extension)"
> * "Published 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
>
>
>
>
>