Re: prevalence of schema.org/Book

Niklas,

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, the extension mechanism of Schema.org is of very limited use. If
we find that others use it, then we can see if those are types or
properties that ought to be included in Schema.org proper. For folks
that don't know to or can't discover a type or property that works for
them, then I could see folks using it. Even if they're using RDFa it
can be confusing to find an appropriate type and property and then use
it correctly. The extension mechanism is something that I would use
though.

> 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.)

If you're referring to IRIs like http://schema.org/Book/name from my
post, then that comes directly from the Web Data Commons data. If this
is incorrect, which it appears to be, then it should be taken up with
them. I was just taking the data as I was given it and spitting it
back out. Here's a typical NQuad from the Web Data Commons corpus:
_:nodeca28f5cf7b05162b4036f77a176718 <http://schema.org/Book/isbn>
"978-3-902406-06-4"@en
<http://www.seifertverlag.at/en/programme/2003_autumn/detail_pharao.php>
  .

Jason

Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 20:41:26 UTC