- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:58:18 +0100
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Definitely series should be at a higher level. However, what is the series value? Some series have an actual name, some are a list of things with their own names, but there is no name for the whole. Does series imply a named list? What would then be done with un-named lists? kc On 6/13/14, 10:58 AM, Wallis,Richard wrote: > A couple of recent threads have highlighted the current very > TV/Radio-ness of the Series <http://schema.org/Series> Type. Hardly > surprising considering the proposal it came from. > > It seems that it would be better if Series became a generic Type with > more focussed sub-types such as TVSeries, RadioSeries, GameSeries, > MovieSeries, LiterarySeries, etc. > > Looking at the current TV/Radio Series structure, this might be best > handled by the introduction of a BroadcastSeries Type to serve the > current purpose of Series, which then would be replaced by a more > generic Series Type definition: > > CreativeWork>Series>BroadcastSeries>TVSeries > CreativeWork>Series>BroadcastSeries>RadioSeries > CreativeWork>Series>LiterarySeries > CreativeWork>Series>MovieSeries > CreativeWork>Series>>GameSeries > etc. > > > > ~Richard > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 10:58:48 UTC