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

The Current ONIX codes are here:

http://www.editeur.org/14/Code-Lists/#code lists

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Dawson, Laura <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>wrote:

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


-- 
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry