Re: Proposing Article

Dan, 

I have added the sentence to the description and a relationship with other vocabularies section to see how this might look - some of the wording to eventually find its way on to the individual property description pages if accepted.

We can see what folks think about this approach in the meeting tomorrow.

~Richard

On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:57, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> (bibo) deserving specific mention."
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>> I’m wondering how much our rationale for PublicationVolume would inform the
>> proposal to the wider community or confuse them.
> 
> Under danbri's guidance, schema.org seems generally interested in
> trying to maintain compatibility with existing ontologies, so I think
> it would make the proposal stronger if we had a section like:
> 
> """*Bibliographic Ontology mapping: In particular, the following
> properties and classes should be considered equivalents
> (owl:equivalentProperty / owl:equivalentClass):"
> 
> New:
> * schema:issueNumber -> bibo:issue
> * schema:issn -> bibo:issn, bibo:eissn (assuming that's valid...)
> * schema:pageStart -> bibo:pageStart
> * schema:pageEnd -> bibo:pageEnd
> * schema:pagination -> bibo:pages
> * schema:Periodical -> bibo:Periodical
> * schema:PublicationIssue -> bibo:Issue (* volume property excepted)
> 
> Existing:
> * schema:isbn -> bibo:isbn
> * schema:CreativeWork -> bibo:Document (maybe?)
> ...
> """
> 
> ... then it would make sense to have a rationale for why we
> deliberately broke the mapping. Even if we don't include a partial
> mapping in the proposal, people will eventually ask why we chose to do
> what we did (even if it happens after the proposal has been accepted);
> we might as well make that argument explicit.
> 
>> As to examples, as long as they are syntacticly correct with respect to our
>> proposal, I believe the more the better.
> 
> Great, I'll start adding them then!
> 
> Dan

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 20:25:47 UTC