- From: Mark A. Matienzo <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:03:47 -0400
- To: Corey Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAtO2NvPV9sCWCFr-aeLcBwLeoQTDnFiOBWMtDa3S68Hn7eP3w@mail.gmail.com>
I strongly advise the exclusion of containers. I think I understand Richard's intent: *Containers - I would still like to see this in if possible. It is targeted at the storage of archive material, not the organisation of archives themselves - see example on the container page <http://sdo-bib.appspot.com/Container?ext=bib> - it is a basic foundation that could be used elsewhere and may at a later date be ca candidate for promotion to there core schema.org <http://schema.org/>.* ....but, I nonetheless don't totally understand it, based on the examples provided. The example seems to suggest that the intent is the ability to refer to a specific unit of archival material for purpose of citation. Why do we care about "storage"? Corey is right - if this is intended to represent archival material, I'd suggest perhaps involving more archivists in this discussion. Cheers, Mark A. Matienzo <mark@matienzo.org> Director of Technology, Digital Public Library of America On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Corey A Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu> wrote: > 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 >
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2015 07:51:19 UTC