On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote: > > Within these there are a few new CreativeWork subtypes. Some are fairly > obvious (Newspaper, Atlas, MusicScore, Thesis, Chapter) some less obvious > (Kit, Toy). In support of Kit & Toy I would say they are both used in > bibliographic description - for example in toy collections/libraries in the > same way as kits [I’m sure there could be a better word] of materials are > often catalogued and circulated by libraries. > Am I misunderstanding the root of the word bibliographic? It would be awesome to get information about books and other written materials into schema.org, but I'd hate to see it become an unorganized dumping ground for a couple of centuries of cataloging cruft. The fact that libraries lend toys and "kits" (and museum passes and tools and all manner of other stuff) doesn't make them creative works or in any way bibliographic. Focus on the bibliographic please. In a similar vein, I hope "Meeting" isn't on the list because someone's going to propose that a meeting can author a creative work. Tradition doesn't make it right. Tom
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 05:00:13 UTC