W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemabibex@w3.org > January 2013

Re: prevalence of schema.org/Book

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:25:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjV5je2SmaSHYsjuvraBr2_uSrTM--mZ9zWZV7ij1WEZ-u21g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> Karen,
> I believe that extension tokens added to Schema.org classes are
> interpreted as subclasses rather than as properties. It's possible they
> could deduce that these are intended to be properties in that class
> domain from the usage as such, but I haven't seen them consider the
> possibility. I suspect it will be GIGO, but maybe I missed it. Their
> advice is to have properties extend other properties like
> http://schema.org/creator/architect. Unlike schema:Thing, though, there
> is no top property.

Yes, if they are interpreted at all, that would be it. I would
strongly advice against using this "extension" mechanism for anything
intended to persist and being used by others than syntax-centric
things and plain SEO experiments though. There is no guarantee that
IRIs minted like that refer to the same concept (only to the common
aspect shared by all classes/properties who in english (arguably)
share the same lexical camel-case labeling..) Nor that they will ever
be dereferenceable.

I suspect there is something strange with the property IRIs in that
data. Jason, did those IRIs come from the source? Schema.org
properties have IRIs of the form <http://schema.org/{term}>, i.e. not
concatenated on a type. (As Jeff also mentioned; see [1] for details.)

> Schema.org does have an OWL ontology, so it should be possible to see
> how they've justified the same property in multiple classes.
> http://www.schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
> Assuming they take OWL seriously, they would infer new types for the
> entity if properties were mixed and matched. If example, if the claimed
> type is schema:Book and somebody used the schema:sku property, they
> could infer it is also a schema:Product.

The schema.org vocabulary is more of a basic RDFS schema, along with a
looser notion of domain and range. But DanBri is working on defining
these parts and clarifying how it all fits within the RDF data model.
See e.g.:


(I follow this from time to time, but I'm not actively keeping up with
it right now, so I may have missed any recent development.)


[1]: http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html

> Jeff
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:02 PM
>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: prevalence of schema.org/Book
>> Wow, thanks. It's great to see "real data."
>> Some of the non-book ones are legitimate in other contexts in
>> schema.org, specifically:
>> http://schema.org/Book/price*
>> http://schema.org/Book/priceCurrency*
>> http://schema.org/Book/ratingValue*
>> Oftentimes properties are "included" in a schema.org schema from other
>> areas of the vocabulary, but I don't know if that is required. Could
>> you just use:
>> http://schema.org/ratingValue
>> ? or does it have to be imported into /Book to be usable? If either is
>> "valid" (with "validity" having a wide range in schema.org), is one
>> preferable, e.g. is adding 'ratingValue' to the Book schema clearer
> for
>> applications that will use the data?
>> kc
>> On 1/24/13 7:50 PM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As this group progresses, I thought it might be useful to begin to
>> > look at how schema.org is already being used for marking up
>> > bibliographic content. Having more data might help make better
>> > proposals.
>> >
>> > So I took a quick look at some of the data that already exists and
>> > wrote it up here:
>> > http://jronallo.github.com/blog/the-prevalence-of-schema-dot-org-
>> book-properties-in-the-wild/
>> >
>> > What other questions do folks have that existing data like this
> might
>> > help answer? I'm hoping to take a closer look at the Web Data
> Commons
>> > corpus eventually.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 20:26:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:19 UTC