W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Proposal: Promote 'citation' property up to CreativeWork

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 12:44:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFp1Kw257hfxZNqygvrs+jTiwrVH7dszjmbBmm37Xe9tbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 7 May 2013 12:26, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> In reflection of the silence around this proposal - do I need to add it to
> a Wiki page or something?

It sounds like a perfectly sensible suggestion. If you wouldn't mind
making a little page in
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals patterned
after the others, it would help track things.

(Hmm I see the W3C Wiki template system seems not to be working for us
any more; the page headers aren't working as they used to)

Anyway, let's go ahead with this. I don't think it needs a huge amount
of discussion.

Does anyone here think it would be a *bad* idea to promote the
'citation' property to be usable with any CreativeWork?

Note (to offset any potential objections...) that this does not mean
(a) all creative works _must_ have a citation property (b) nor will it
stand in the way of us coming up with more expressive ways to model
different types of inter-work citations.


> ~Richard
> On 22/03/2013 11:13, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>>This is the first proposal from the Schema Bib Extend
>>Group<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/>, consisting of 60+ people
>>from a broad cross section of publishers, libraries, and others
>>interested in enhancing Schema.org's capabilities in the area of
>>bibliographic and associated resources.
>>We are working on several proposals.  However this appeared to be an
>>obvious, simple, uncontroversial proposal to start with.
>>To promote the 'citation' property, currently on the
>>MedicalScholarlyArticle<http://schema.org/MedicalScholarlyArticle> Type,
>>up to the CreativeWork<http://schema.org/CreativeWork> Type.   Many more
>>creative work types other than medical, or general, scholarly articles
>>can and do cite other works.
>>Although the focus of our group's proposal is obviously bibliographic
>>works, this change could open up wider opportunities for web pages, music
>>(sampling of tracks?), art (description of a collage?), etc.
>>More detail of the proposal is available on the group wiki:
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 11:45:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC