Re: Proposing Article

No problem adding an acknowledgement of being informed by bibo sentence.

Somewhere in the description section: “The discussions behind these proposals was informed from several sources with the Bibliographic Ontology<http://bibliontology.com/> (bibo) deserving specific mention."

I’m wondering how much our rationale for PublicationVolume would inform the proposal to the wider community or confuse them.

As to examples, as long as they are syntacticly correct with respect to our proposal, I believe the more the better.


~Richard

On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:48, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com<mailto:denials@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
Hi and Happy New Year!

A simple one to start the conversation in 2014.

Can I have +/- 1’s for submitting the Article proposal
<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Article> to the public-vocabs
list.

The only change I would make is to it’s name which I think should be
“Periodicals, Articles & Multi-volume Works”

-1 until we at least acknowledge how the Bibliographic Ontology has
informed our proposal (giving credit where credit is due).

I think we should also include a rationale for why we surfaced the
PublicationVolume type (for which there is no equivalent in bibo) as
that's going to complicate mappings between our proposed schema.org<http://schema.org>
extension and bibo.

In the last call for +1/-1 I had also suggested including examples
that follow the schema.org<http://schema.org> standard
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Dec/0143.html)
for each new type. I had offered to add such examples earlier in the
thread (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Dec/0117.html),
and that offer still stands, but without a yea/nay I don't want to
mess with the proposal.