- From: Osma Suominen <osma.suominen@helsinki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:52:21 +0200
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
29.11.2016, 15:43, Dan Brickley kirjoitti: > Thanks for this. Can you offer any insight into how this approach > compares/contrasts to whatever's going on in the Bibframe world? Do > they have similar short lists of work types? Here's the list [1] of Work subclasses from BIBFRAME 2.0: * Text * Cartography * Audio * NotatedMusic * NotatedMovement * Dataset * StillImage * MovingImage * Object * Multimedia * MixedMaterial Here's the list [2] of Instance subclasses: * Print * Manuscript * Archival * Tactile * Electronic AFAICT many of these exist in Schema.org, but not all of them. For example, Text does not exist (in the sense of "textual work") and StillImage and MovingImage are not represented at that level, though there are more specific types for similar things within Schema.org. -Osma [1] http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe.html#c_Work [2] http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe.html#c_Instance -- Osma Suominen D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist National Library of Finland P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4) 00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Tel. +358 50 3199529 osma.suominen@helsinki.fi http://www.nationallibrary.fi
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 14:52:57 UTC