W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Proposed new Schema.org type for poetry and fiction

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 11:56:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1431197777.62566.YahooMailBasic@web122903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org, kcoyle@kcoyle.net

On Sun, 3/22/15, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Proposed new Schema.org type for poetry and fiction
 To: public-vocabs@w3.org
 Date: Sunday, March 22, 2015, 9:31 AM
 I always feel a bit
 worried about creating a hierarchy between 
 expression forms (text, sound, illustration)
 and creative types (book, 
 comment). I think its best if these can be treated as
 facets because they combine in
 various ways. A book can be a picture or 
 photograph book, a comment can be made as a
 video or sound file. Every 
 time one tries
 to pin down types, someone comes along with one that 
 doesn't fit the mold.
 TextObject parallel to MediaObject makes sense,
 but a strict hierarchy 
 with article, book,
 comment, etc. would be problematic as those are not 
 kinds of texts, they are kinds of publications.
 Kinds of texts could be 
 poem, essay,
 novella.... but there's a lot of fuzziness between 
 publications and texts and common language use
 does not make clear 
 distinctions between
 them. For that reason, I think could be best to 
 create something that echoes the mime-type
 concept, and not connect it 
 to publication
 types or creative work types, but let those be coded 
 On 3/21/15 1:43 PM,
 Wallis,Richard wrote:
 > Liking the the
 definition [1] of 'a resource primarily intended to
 > 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.
 > On 20 Mar
 2015, at 22:10, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com
 > <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>>
 >> This is a very timely thread for the
 Web Annotation working group in
 >> the
 >> We
 are looking to replace the Dublin Core types[1][2] with the
 >> 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,
 >> 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
 Karen Coyle
Received on Saturday, 9 May 2015 18:56:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:40 UTC