RE: question regarding repeatability of properties

Good point, that definition is not so good! I just filed a bug.

https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1717

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/
gives lots of reasons why we shouldn't have said that.

Thanks,

Dan


On 14 Aug 2017 6:26 pm, "Timothy Cole" <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:

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>
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