RE: Extension syntax Was: Re: Updated Example

Here's what Schema.org says about its data model:
http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html

Conformance

While we would like all the markup we get to follow the schema, in
practice, we expect a lot of data that does not. We expect schema.org
properties to be used with new types. We also expect that often, where
we expect a property value of type Person, Place, Organization or some
other subClassOf Thing, we will get a text string. In the spirit of
"some data is better than none", we will accept this markup and do the
best we can. 

I think we are supporting the spirit of this.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:06 AM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Extension syntax Was: Re: Updated Example
> 
> So you're saying that library data can only be used with schema.org
> markup if the information in the records is parsed into controlled
> lists? I think that's a pretty high barrier to entry.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 2/25/13 12:31 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
> > On 25/02/2013 02:28, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> >
> >     I'm not advocating lists of values, just properties with text
> like
> >
> >     <span itemprop="techDetails">Format: OverDrive MP3 Audiobook,
> OverDrive
> >     WMA Audiobook</span>
> >
> >     or
> >
> >     <span itemprop="techDetails">Mode of access: World Wide
> Web</span>
> >
> >     Obviously you can't do with text what you can with controlled
> > lists,
> >
> > Precisely - Google recognised this - that  is one of the reasons
they
> > are behind Schema.org, to introduce 'structured data' into the web.
> >    Things not Strings
> > <http://googleblog.blogspot.fr/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-
> thi
> > ngs-not.html> puts it very well.  With the variation of language and
> > spelling on the web, how on earth could you reliably build an
> > interface to differentiate such information trapped in a string.
> >
> > Do we have an example of technology struggling to extract meaning
> from
> > information embedded in strings? - oh yes, library records.  I am a
> > little taken aback that you are suggesting this as a way forward.
> >
> >
> >     but the information from which to derive a precise list member
> >     simply isn't there.
> >
> >
> > So lets find a simple way to get it there - get the ONIX codes
> > available as reliable dereferencable canonical URIs quickly for the
> > benefit of all - or take a pragmatic way forward with Product
> > Ontology.  A few parallel solutions could coexist, so pick one until
> > your favourite is available in  a useable form.
> >
> > ~Richard
> >
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 15:11:33 UTC