Re: JSON-LD context file at schema.org - request for feedback

Hi Dan,

Are there any stats out there about how such properties are used.
Seems reasonable to me that the context would support/reflect the most common
usage.

e.g. if a text value is used with schema:namedPosition in 90% of places it's
used, then go for string as default.

Cheers,
John


> On January 21, 2015 at 2:05 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello JSON-LD people!
>
> I'm looking for a sanity check on the basic functionality of
> schema.org's JSON-LD context file.
>
> The context is content negotiable from the site homepage but also
> available at http://schema.org/docs/jsonldcontext.json.txt
>
> I realise it could potentially contain more information, e.g. actual
> schema assertions. But for now I would mostly appreciate review on
> whether it meets community expectations around the basics.
>
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/51 records an open issue
> regarding properties that might take either strings or URLs as values.
> I understand that for these, instance data can always use a "long
> form" and datatype accordingly, so the concern is more about
> defaulting when this isn't done. The relevant Python code is
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/master/api.py#L434
>
> http://schema.org/namedPosition takes both Text and URL values. The
> current context says
>
> "namedPosition": { "@type": "@id" },
>
> which I believe means "namedPosition": { "@value": "Quarterback" } is
> needed to override this.
>
> My feeling from the github discussion is that we should suppress this
> and default to text. E.g. Gregg commented that
>
> "When I generate my own JSON-LD context for schema.org I do not set
> @type to @id for properties where the range includes schema:text (or
> similar literal value). IMO, it's more intuitive for an author to use
> {"@id": "/foo"} than {"@value": "foo"}."
>
> I'd like to close out our basic context support before getting into
> any fancier business such as exposing the actual schema data, so any
> feedback on this or related points would be much appreciated.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> p.s.
> http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/new-structured-data-testing-tool.html
> and
> http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/upcoming-events-in-knowledge-graph.html
> show some of the use we're making of JSON-LD lately around Google. In
> particular the new testing tool can extract JSON-LD, even (within
> reason) from a Javascript-generated DOM...
>