Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Proposal for an additional term: mediaType

Check ONIX codelists as well. Some useful stuff in those.

On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:41 AM, "Suliman, Suraiya H" <suraiya.h.suliman@lmco.com<mailto:suraiya.h.suliman@lmco.com>> wrote:

The list I have contains the following values. Note that this is not a complete list, just one from a particular publisher.

Audio CD
Audiotape
Calculator
CD-I
CD-ROM
Diskette
Duplication Master
DVD/ Blu-ray
E-Mail
Electronic Slides
Field Trip
Filmstrip
Flash
Image
In-Person/Speaker
Interactive Whiteboard
Manipulative
MBL (Microcomputer Based)
Microfiche
Overhead
Pamphlet
PDF
Person-to-Person
Phonograph Record
Photo
Podcast
Printed
Radio
Robotics
Satellite
Slides
Television
Transparency
Video Conference
Videodisc
Webpage
Wiki


________________________________________
From: Dan Brickley [danbri@danbri.org<mailto:danbri@danbri.org>]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 8:57 AM
To: Suliman, Suraiya H
Cc: Evain, Jean-Pierre; Public Vocabs; Greg Grossmeier; Thomas Baker; Stuart Sutton
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Proposal for an additional term: mediaType

On 21 September 2012 14:21, Suliman, Suraiya H
<suraiya.h.suliman@lmco.com<mailto: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<http://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<http://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<http://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<http://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<http://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


Laura Dawson
Product Manager, Identifiers
Bowker
908-219-0082
917-770-6641
laura.dawson@bowker.com<mailto:laura.dawson@bowker.com>