- From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 11:56:17 -0700
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org, kcoyle@kcoyle.net
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/genreForms.html -------------------------------------------- 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, article, comment). I think its best if these can be treated as separate 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 separately. kc On 3/21/15 1:43 PM, 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 > > 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 > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 9 May 2015 18:56:44 UTC