W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Proposal: Periodicals, Articles and Multi-volume Works

From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:23:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAY5AM1bsFfSP6H1UWT0XJngUA50aH7q=_zO+2KtkxvH+ozx2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:


> Thanks for this! And the nicely detailed
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works
> Is it safe to assume that this obsoletes the non-comic-specific
> aspects of http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/PeriodicalsComics ?

Yes - we pulled the extremely knowledgeable and helpful Peter Olson
and Henry Andrews into our discussions (perhaps to their chagrin!) and
after a flurry of discussions an initial attempt to synthesize
Periodicals + Comics, thought it was better to nail down Periodicals
first and continue on with Comics as a specialization thereafter. Feel
free to peruse the pertinent subset of the 145 messages last month at

For what it's worth, I don't think we're terribly far off with Comics,
and I plan to pursue it in the near future, but would like to have the
base Periodicals solidified first.

> Also, can you offer any insight on how this fits with
> http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle ? I guess they just plug in via the
> general Article type?

As ScholarlyArticle is just a subclass of Article and adds no
properties, there's no difference other than name, right? So yes, all
of Article will apply equally to ScholarlyArticle. And I suspect that
most of the conversations around Article really had ScholarlyArticle
in mind; certainly most of the examples took that bent.

> We should also look to improve ScholarlyArticle
> of course.

Was there something specific you expected to see regarding
ScholarlyArticle-specific improvements that you didn't see?

Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 00:23:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:20 UTC