Re: Argumentation Schema

I put some rough draft examples up at:

https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/

My thoughts on the discussion question were that more intricate structures could be in JSON-LD <script> elements. With microdata/RDFa, the structures go atop the markup, atop the natural language; elements are utilized once in microdata/RDFa.

From: Richard Wallis<mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Sent: ?Monday?, ?January? ?16?, ?2017 ?11?:?48? ?AM
To: Adam Sobieski<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Cc: public-schemaorg@w3.org<mailto:public-schemaorg@w3.org>, public-argumentation@w3.org<mailto:public-argumentation@w3.org>

I am finding it difficult to see how these options would work without having some marked up example use cases to look at.

I am also a little confused by the discussion question about which microdata/RDFa and JSON-LD scenarios we should be looking at.   In Schema.org (in the vast majority of cases) the encoding syntax should not be relevant - the vocabulary should work the same for all three syntaxes.

~Richard.

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 16 January 2017 at 16:33, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Schema.org Community Group,
Argumentation Community Group,

Thank you for your feedback and comments so far. I've refactored the schemas.

https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/

I'm exploring two approaches to modeling argument maps. A first approach is to model the relationships between statements or quotations.

Relationship - Extends Intangible<https://schema.org/Intangible>. A relationship between a subject and an object.
subject: Text<http://schema.org/Text> or Quotation<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or Relationship<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList> or URI
object: Text<http://schema.org/Text> or Quotation<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or Relationship<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList> or URI

A second approach is to model statements which extend CreativeWork and which can be interrelated.

Statement - Extends CreativeWork<http://schema.org/CreativeWork>. A statement.
supports: Statement<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList>
supportedBy: Statement<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList>
opposes: Statement<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList>
opposedby: Statement<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList>

I'll explore how the approaches work in Microdata, RDFa and JSON-LD.

Regardless of approach 1 or 2, a topic of argumentation schemas is to convenience the expression of agreement and disagreement and to support the expression of rationale for so doing.

AgreeQuotation - Extends Quotation<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>. A quotation which is agreed with.
rationale: Text<http://schema.org/Text> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList>

DisagreeQuotation - Extends Quotation<https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>. A quotation which is disagreed with.
rationale: Text<http://schema.org/Text> or ItemList<https://schema.org/ItemList>


Best regards,
Adam Sobieski