Re: Three steps

Hi Karen,

I can't verify your nesting either (I'm in the audience at SWIB12 at the
moment) but it looks about right.  By doing it that way, you are you are not
only saying the author is "J.D. Salinger", you are also asserting that the
author is a Person that has a name property of "J.D. Salinger".

Yes, schema.org is relaxed about providing strings in place of expected
types but doing that, unless there is no alternative, is missing a
significant opportunity to describe the relationships we have in our data.

As our data, and systems, evolve over time it may well be possible to add in
more information to enrich such structures.

This is why I want to encourage the use of recipes/examples, such as you
have supplied here, for others to follow and benefit from our discussions.

~Richard.


On 28/11/2012 15:50, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> On 11/28/12 4:09 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> 
>> Step 1.
>> schema:Book->author is a property that requires a link to a Person or
>> Organization ­ not a literal string.   Therefore example markup would
>> require links to Person description either externally supplied or
>> created locally on the fly.
> 
> I don't read it that way. The documentation says:
> 
> "Expected types vs text. When browsing the schema.org types, you will
> notice that many properties have "expected types". This means that the
> value of the property can itself be an embedded item (see section 1d:
> embedded items). But this is not a requirement‹it's fine to include just
> regular text or a URL. In addition, whenever an expected type is
> specified, it is also fine to embed an item that is a child type of the
> expected type. For example, if the expected type is Place, it's also OK
> to embed a LocalBusiness."
> 
> They give a book example:
> 
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>    <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>‹
>    by <span itemprop="author">J.D. Salinger</a>
>    Here is the book's <a itemprop="url"
> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye">Wikipedia
> page</a>.
> </div>
> 
> I'm trying to imagine what that would look like if you included the
> Person itemprop... it would be like their "embedded types" example:
> 
> <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Movie">
>    <h1 itemprop="name"&g;Avatar</h1>
>    <div itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
>    Director: <span itemprop="name">James Cameron</span> (born <span
> itemprop="birthDate">August 16, 1954)</span>
>    </div>
>    <span itemprop="genre">Science fiction</span>
>    <a href="../movies/avatar-theatrical-trailer.html"
> itemprop="trailer">Trailer</a>
> </div>
> 
> Using this, I come up with this "unverified" code:
> 
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>    <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>‹
>    by
>    <div itemprop="author" itemscope
> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">J.D.
> Salinger</span></a></div>
>    Here is the book's <a itemprop="url"
> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye">Wikipedia
> page</a>.
> </div>
> 
> My nesting may not be valid, but I think that it's conceptually correct
> - the <div> for author is of scope Person, and within Person you have
> "name".
> 
> kc
> 
>> 
>> Step 2.
>> We only have a string for an author name, so why not suggest that Schema
>> relaxes the restrictions on Book->author to enable the use of strings.
>>   Taking account of the underlying philosophy behind Schema (Things not
>> Strings), it is exceedingly unlikely that such a proposal would be
>> accepted as it would break their related entities model of the world.
>> 
>> Step 3.
>> We need to provide examples of how we would markup various situations
>> that would cope with my ideal view and Karenšs real situation of only
>> having an author string ­ plus possibly a few in-between.  I believe
>> that it would be possible to satisfy Schemašs need for a Person
>> description (in this case with only a name property) by creating a
>> description in line on the fly.
>> 
>> I am conscious that as a group we have not been good at sharing example
>> markup ­  I include me in that, my RDFa is not as good as I would like
>> it to be ­ how we rectify this is something I ant to address in the next
>> call. (tomorrow)
>> 
>> ~Richard.

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:23:38 UTC