- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:31:52 +0200
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
+1 Let's not mix a mechanism for preserving ordered list with one for basic notions of meronomy (part-whole relationships). A list of parts can be ordered or unordered. An ordered list can reflect part-whole relationships or not. These are different perspectives. Of course, depending on the notion of parthood, elements in a list are parts of the list (or not), but this is not the important aspect here. Martin On 13 May 2014, at 22:25, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote: > Got it, thanks. And I can live with that just fine. > > Now I also was just looking at the periodicals proposal (https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works) and wondered if there's any danger of ItemList having some overlap with the proposed @hasPart property. @hasPart's description in that proposal says: "A related CreativeWork that is included either logically or physically in this CreativeWork; for example, things in a collection, parts in a multi-part work, or articles in a periodical or publication issue." > > Now I could be wrong here but "things in a collection, parts in a multi-part work" both could be expressed with the properties of ItemList as well. So I don't know if that should be investigated further as well. > > > Jarno, you could express them that way...BUT we need to keep them separate since they handle 2 different kinds of uses...ItemList (editorialized list of things) and hasPart (things being a part of something, like a collection) In other words...An ITEM IN A LIST does not equal An ITEM IN A COLLECTION. 2 different Types. > > -- > -Thad > +ThadGuidry > Thad on LinkedIn
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 20:32:16 UTC