Re: Finalising bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your quick reply.

My concerns lie with BoxContainer, Container, FolderContainer, and Shelf.

I definitely see their utility, though. Perhaps if we're careful to frame
this as more general than "Archives" it might be less problematic (to me).
As I said, my main concern is not appearing to be making decisions on
behalf of a very large community that hasn't been invited to the
conversation.

Thanks,
-Corey

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On 22 April 2015 at 19:44, Corey A Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu> wrote:
> > Hi Richard, et al.,
> >
> > I just wanted to state again for the record that I think it's premature
> to
> > be doing archival container modeling with this kind of time-frame. I
> > remember the length of deliberation we went through earlier in this
> group to
> > achieve some kind of consensus on a bib extension with a much narrower
> > scope. It feels problematic to me to do something completely new, for an
> > unrepresented-but-related domain, with input from very few people.
> >
> > I don't disagree with what you've laid out in principle. I do worry about
> > fostering ill will with the archives community if this group runs with
> the
> > proposal as is without giving anyone from that domain a chance to chime
> in.
> >
> > Anyway, do with my comment what you will. I just wanted to share the
> > concern.
>
> Can suggest which specific pieces that should be postponed? And in
> general I'm sympathetic on keeping this version modest. We should
> consider this first version of the first hosted extension to be a baby
> step, the start of a journey rather than the arrival at the
> endpoint...
>
> Dan
>



-- 
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
212.998.2479
corey.harper@nyu.edu