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

Re: attachments to CreativeWorks

From: Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:51:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CACWrOGbTLHD0z4C8O99fq304u3uU2mdOLboQGPpcmS0BZcQ_kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
Does anyone object to changing the description to make it clear that it is *
not* a synonym for "encodings"? That seems to be the suggestion from this
thread anyway.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:52, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> 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 23:52:34 GMT

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