- From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:23:05 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Cc: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: <snip> > Thanks for this! And the nicely detailed > http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works > > Is it safe to assume that this obsoletes the non-comic-specific > aspects of http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/PeriodicalsComics ? Yes - we pulled the extremely knowledgeable and helpful Peter Olson and Henry Andrews into our discussions (perhaps to their chagrin!) and after a flurry of discussions an initial attempt to synthesize Periodicals + Comics, thought it was better to nail down Periodicals first and continue on with Comics as a specialization thereafter. Feel free to peruse the pertinent subset of the 145 messages last month at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Dec/index.html :) For what it's worth, I don't think we're terribly far off with Comics, and I plan to pursue it in the near future, but would like to have the base Periodicals solidified first. > Also, can you offer any insight on how this fits with > http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle ? I guess they just plug in via the > general Article type? As ScholarlyArticle is just a subclass of Article and adds no properties, there's no difference other than name, right? So yes, all of Article will apply equally to ScholarlyArticle. And I suspect that most of the conversations around Article really had ScholarlyArticle in mind; certainly most of the examples took that bent. > We should also look to improve ScholarlyArticle > of course. Was there something specific you expected to see regarding ScholarlyArticle-specific improvements that you didn't see? Thanks, Dan
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 00:23:34 UTC