Re: Proposal: Audiobook

> 
> However, I think an audio book is a discreet enough entity that it is useful to classify it as a separate type, with some properties that are unique to it in comparison to other CreativeWork propeties (even if only "performer") - so it does leave me wanting, yes.  A recorded song is "just" an audio recording of a CreativeWork, but nonetheless we have MusicRecording.  And an audio book (or, especially, audio performance) need not be derivative of another creative work, but may be an original creative work in its own right, like other more specific types of creative works like Movie or TVSeries.  So, for example, under the existing schemas, an original BBC radio drama could only be marked up as CreativeWork, with certain properties accessible via "encoding", but without access to obviously relevant properties like "director", "actor" and "startDate" that fall under TVSeries (audio books, at least theoretically share these same properties).
> 
> Perhaps in the interest of reuse, and so that we're not iteratively building out more an more specific types, the world could live without "AudioBook" and/or an equivalent for an audio dramatization.  I'd say there's value in a new type or type here.
> 

There was some discussion of Radio Drama (and TV Series) on the schemabibex list - and it was partially to come up with a discrete workable proposal that the group decided to focus on AudioBook - there's a thread I started at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Feb/0094.html which touches on this, although that in itself came from an extended discussion about the separation of 'content' vs the 'carrier'. I don't know if it adds to this discussion as such but it explains why we didn't expand the proposal for these other types, and that there is definite interest in being able to mark up a wider variety of spoken audio content than is expressed in the specific proposal Richard has circulated

Owen

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 19:07:33 UTC