On 21/03/15 20:43, Wallis,Richard wrote: > Liking the the definition [1] of 'a resource primarily intended to be > read’. > > I’m sure we could argue for a Type (TextWork ?) to be fitted between > CreativeWork and it’s current subTypes Answer, Article, Book, Comment, > EmailMessage, Question, Recipe, Review. > > ~Richard +1 Paul > > On 20 Mar 2015, at 22:10, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com > <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> >> This is a very timely thread for the Web Annotation working group in >> the W3C! >> >> We are looking to replace the Dublin Core types[1][2] with the richer >> schema.org <http://schema.org/> types, but are missing a nice >> replacement for dctypes:Text. Having a subclass of CreativeWork >> specifically for textual content, to mirror VideoObject, ImageObject >> and so forth, would make this a slam dunk. >> >> Many thanks for your consideration! >> >> Rob >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#body-and-target-classes >> [2] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Mar/0069.html >> >> -- >> Rob Sanderson >> Information Standards Advocate >> Digital Library Systems and Services >> Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 14:02:05 UTC