RE: question regarding repeatability of properties

Thanks, Dan.

 

What gave us pause with regard to http://schema.org/familyName was this part of its definition:

 

    "...[familyName] can be used along with givenName instead of the name property."

 

We think it would be acceptable and common sense to read

 

"name": "Mary Jones Smith",

"familyName" : ["Smith", "Jones"], 

"givenName" : "Mary"

 

As saying that the Person described has been known variously as Mary Jones, Mary Jones Smith, and Mary Smith ...  There are of course other ways these name constructions might be serialized, and maybe some of these other ways would be even more sensible. (Understand it's not always rigorously deterministic.) We mostly wanted to make sure we weren't being totally off base or incomprehensible with the above approach.

 

-Tim Cole

  University of Illinois at UC

 

 

From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@google.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:54 AM
To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Cc: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>; schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: question regarding repeatability of properties

 

On 9 August 2017 at 21:45, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> > wrote:

Hi Jacob,

 

There are no cardinality constraints on Schema.org properties so you can omit them or repeat them as required.

 

Indeed, we have no formal expression of cardinality constraints. However, in a few situations there is a natural commonsense reading where you might expect there to be only one natural value for a given property - e.g. birthDate or deathDate of a Person.  You might legitimately write the same date twice in slightly different ISO-8601 forms, although that is unlikely to be very helpful. Commonsense goes a long way, here...

 

Dan

 

 

Received on Monday, 14 August 2017 17:26:37 UTC