W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2012

Re: attachments to CreativeWorks

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:52:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFoVLcTaiTPDF+7ota=JC7-1qJhKBAK2O-X+LzJJifD3PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
Cc: Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
On 23 February 2012 19:14, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote:
>>
>> first couple, of what will likely be many, implementation questions:
>>
>> - how would folks recommend representing a short textual creative work
>> like a twitter post?  CreativeWork doesn't seem to have a place to put the
>> body of the post, so would that then require the use of Article (so you can
>> use articleBody)?  I guess for something like a tweet, you could potentially
>> put the full message into the description of a generic CreativeWork, but
>> that doesn't seem to work as well for longer posts like Google+ supports.
>>  By the way, is there a general rule of thumb that folks are using for the
>> maximum length  a description value should be.
>
>
>  That's a good question.  I assume the markup needs to be included?
>  Unfortunately, I don't believe the microdata spec allows for picking up
> markup as part of a value.... but this seems like a common/important use
> case.

That's my understanding of Microdata too. Also I don't think this is
handled in the [draft] Lite subset of RDFa 1.1, but full RDFa 1.1 does
allow it.

>> - how would you represent supporting media objects for a creative work?
>>  For example, a photo that is part of a blog post.  At first glance,
>> associatedMedia looks like it would be the right property given its name.
>>  However, the description states that it is a synonym for encodings, which
>> throws me off a bit.  Personally, I reading encodings as being an alternate
>> representation of the work (equivalent to a <link rel="alternate">).  It's
>> exactly the same resource, only with a different encoding.  Based simply on
>> the name, I read associatedMedia as being roughly equivalent to a <link
>> rel="enclosure"> or more generic <link rel="related">.  That is, it's a
>> different resource.
>
>
> That description doesn't make any sense to me either.  My understanding was
> Thing/image, CreativeWork/audio and CreativeWork/video were meant to be the
> representations of the object itself... and I would assume associatedMedia
> would be what you want.

It seems the closest, but 'The media objects that encode this creative
work' throws me too. I think I share Will's expectation that
associatedMedia suggests "something else that goes along with this
thing". They're components or 'supporting parts' rather than encodings
of it. But yes, the property seems right; perhaps we could tweak the
description.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:52:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:59 GMT