Re: Proposing Article

+1 Though I agree with Jeff about using schema:sameAs with the DOI.  This
is actually an issue that we discussed in some of the IR modeling work that
I am doing with Montana State University.  Also, the proposed classes and
properties mirror very closely the modeling work with Montana State.  Since
we are trying to cherry-pick from schema.org as much as possible, it will
be very helpful to get proposals submitted and approved, so we do not have
to use custom classes and properties in the IR model.

Jeff Mixter


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:

>  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> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Wallis,Richard <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
> extension and bibo.
>
> In the last call for +1/-1 I had also suggested including examples
> that follow the 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.
>
>
>


-- 
Jeff Mixter
jeffmixter@gmail.com
440-773-9079