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

So after mocking up a few tidbits of details in a spreadsheet with details
from  http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification  and
http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#container-mapping-table  and about a
dozen others and doing some classification mapping...

I came to the very quick opinion that MediaType's vary across domains,
which we already knew all too well, and what typically causes confusion
(the mixing between domains).

So we probably have 2 or 3 choices for a proposed MediaType , its generic
use, and where it could be placed within Schema.org:

1. a new specific type called  "DistributionMediaCategory" - that could be
placed under http://schema.org/Enumeration  but the name of which makes it
fairly specific in use (some folks might like that, and some folks not).
 Enumeration is also the place where we decided to generate specific Lists
of Intangible classes of things without generating much fuss about it.  I
think the broadcasting & education folks would probably like this specific
type and I think it would also be useful across the Internet community at
large.

OR

2. a no-holds-barred-unrestricted-use "Category" - that is a more specific
type under http://schema.org/Intangible and which describes a class or
category at the highest intangible level http://schema.org/Category.  This
does 2 things.  It allows an easier entry to Schema.org extensions
themselves.  And it lets you additionally categorize with the
additionalType property if need be, and can be applied across all use cases
and where LRMI and others can perform their external vocabulary magic
without the bounds of Enumeration (flat lists).   For those in doubt, I
refer to the actual description of additionalType property that we
discussed and published
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/additionalTypeProposal :

 An additional type for the item, typically used for adding more specific
types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax. *This is a
relationship between something and a class that the thing is in.* In RDFa
syntax, it is better to use the native RDFa syntax - the 'typeof' attribute
- for multiple types. Schema.org tools may have only weaker understanding
of extra types, in particular those defined externally.

OR

3. a new property "category" under http://schema.org/Thing - a URL that is
independent from additionalType and is used to provide webmasters the
ability to classify Things independent of Schema.org or any external
vocabularies.

OR

4. We do 1 & 2 both because we feel the need to have both ? and not 3
because it sort of breaks the rules of what we are trying to accomplish
with Schema.org and extensions ?

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