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

Isn't a scholarly article Peer Reviewed which not something a regular article would gave?
What about levels of Open Access? Is that shared or different.

I am sure there should be differences between scholarly articles and regular articles even if today they are the same.

Thanks,
Shlomo

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 17, 2014, at 2:23, "Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Dec/index.html
> :)
> 
> 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?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan
>

Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 05:24:09 UTC