- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:57:45 +0200
- To: "Suliman, Suraiya H" <suraiya.h.suliman@lmco.com>
- Cc: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, Stuart Sutton <sasutton@dublincore.net>
On 21 September 2012 14:21, Suliman, Suraiya H
<suraiya.h.suliman@lmco.com> wrote:
> Trying to revive this thread as those of us working on the LRMI tagger see a need to capture "mediaType" information and would like to work towards consensus on how to handle this in Schema.org.
>
> Given that DC and EBUCore (among others) have tried to address this issue and have some proposed solutions, how can we accomodate format/medium in schema.org? I think attributes "encoding" and "genre" ad dress things covered by DC "type". There is still a need to for things like MIMEtype, the physical medium, container format etc. Can we start with the DC "format" as the straw-man and see if this adequately covers "format" in schema.org?
Thanks for the nudge here.
As previous discussion shows, various communities have all got some
partial coverage of this issue, and as we consider e.g. the Library
-oriented proposals from OCLC to improve our bibliographic vocabulary,
the same ("content vs carrier") distinctions will re-appear.
Can we separate the question of 'which schema.org property to use'
from the question of the values? What would be super-useful right now,
is a list of those specific values. We'll need to split them into
fields/properties of course, but for now just seeing a big collection
of the values would be helpful... particularly those that occur in
educational datasets. Generally with schema.org we try to 'surface'
existing content in more explicit form, rather than introduce new
representations, so anything you have from the LRMI community could
help guide us...
cheers,
Dan
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 12:58:13 UTC