- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:15:57 +0000
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- Cc: Erin McKean <erin@wordnik.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAChbWaNQAXS0ezMEPycFi0vjpH09pC2zL7M2COLmxQVa6bQ3+g@mail.gmail.com>
So EnumerationValue is like saying "term"? And EnumerationValueSet is like saying "code for a "definition"? On Fri, Jan 15, 2016, 3:33 AM Richard Wallis < richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote: > Not a total answer but I believe that my proposal for EnumerationValue > would be helpful here <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/894>. > There is an associated pull request (#924 > <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/924>) with example etc. One > of the examples being a term from a legal dictionary. > > ~Richard. > > > Richard Wallis > Founder, Data Liberate > http://dataliberate.com > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis > Twitter: @rjw > > On 13 January 2016 at 02:59, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Erin ! >> >> Let me also CC in the Schema.org mailing list to get you some grounding >> on things (and have others help out here as well). >> >> That's great news that you have at least heard about it and thinking of >> using Schema.org with Wordnik.com. >> >> Wordnik.com (now a non-profit) could use some Schema.org love....ideally >> you would use JSON-LD. (I used Wordnik's API in the past, very cool.) >> >> Reference Schema.org mailing list thread discussing online dictionaries >> last year, to begin everyone's journey: >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Apr/0028.html >> >> The basics I could think of for Wordnik would be uses or extension points >> at: >> https://schema.org/Thing >> https://schema.org/Language ?? >> >> Where Thing - name is any "word" in a language, and to start we would >> just need to add an additional Type such as >> >> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/LexicalItem <-- The most >> fitting form for Wordnik I would think and other online dictionaries ? >> >> Other helpful additional Types would be: >> >> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/SyntacticWord >> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/OrthographicWord >> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/Term >> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/LexicalizedConcept >> >> That's my starting help for you, I'll leave others on the list to chime >> in and take it from there. I don't think a Schema.org extension for this >> is necessarily warranted, but it might be useful to create one, just to >> understand and merge those useful/needed GOLD concepts to Schema.org >> types/properties ... and in doing so, help other online dictionary vendors, >> such as Wordnik, etc. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Thad >> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Erin McKean <erin@wordnik.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks so much! I've been keeping an eye on schema.org, but I haven't >>> dug deep enough to see what the right markup for Wordnik would be. It looks >>> like this StackOverflow post has some details ( >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11698336/schema-org-and-an-online-dictionary) >>> but any suggestions would be gratefully received! >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Erin >>> --------------------- >>> Erin McKean >>> Wordnik >>> @emckean/@wordnik/@wordnikapi >>> the Wordnik mission: every English word, available to everyone, >>> everywhere >>> >>> PS we're happy to send you some stickers -- just let us know where to >>> address the envelope! >>> >>> >>> On 1/12/16 12:02 PM, Thad Guidry wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Get Schema.org JSON-LD scripts into those public Wordnik pages so you >>>> can benefit from searchability ! >>>> >>>> Thad >>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 15 January 2016 13:16:35 UTC