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

Re: Comment versus UserComments

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:33:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnEqLpO0UkXseGOCwsZGV_1JpX1nFZuOg2buN-JehghsLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 22 February 2012 21:27, Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com> wrote:
> > I just wanted to follow up on this. I like the ideas mentioned here...
> > seeing no further debate can we close on a new Comment type? :-)
>
> I've added a row to the proposals table for this, and a Wiki page -
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Comment  in
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals
>
> The core proposal of adding a new type seems to have consensus, and we
> should do it. I was just adding some more details but I'm finding the
> wiki suddenly horribly slow the last half hour. It seems fine right
> now; (maybe some spam-bot attack?).
>
> I'll paste the wiki text below here in case others have the same
> experience. If we can wrap up how deep we want to go in this round
> (eg. supporting properties), it would be great to turn this into an
> update proposal for the site. Adding 'Comment' seems clear progress;
> but then how much more do we do in one step? commentBody property?
> Plain text, or (if Microdata allows) markup somehow?
>

I think there should be some consistency with the CreativeWork types like
Article. Btw, any reason why Comment cannot be a subtype of CreativeWork?
though some properties from CreativeWork are overkill for Comment, it would
save us from having to recreate properties for Comment. There should be at
least a property for the body... aside: commentBody, articleBody, is it
good practice to include the type in a property?

re markup, microdata does not allow markup so there isn't much we can do.
articleBody does not mention anything about markup so I don't think
commentBody should either.

Steph.


>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> This is a proposal for schema.org vocabulary, as discussed in the
> [[WebSchemas]] group.
>
> == Background ==
>
> We have an issue tracking
> [https://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/12 problems with
> UserComments], specifically that ""Comment is under UserInteractions
> not CreativeWork; the former focus on aggregation"."
>
> * Schema.org has a [http://schema.org/UserComments UserComments]
> class, which defines properties commentText, commentTime, creator,
> discusses ('Specifies the CreativeWork associated with the
> UserComment.'), replyToUrl
> * It's a [http://schema.org/UserInteraction UserInteraction], which is
> a kind of event. Many have asked for a simple 'Comment' class that
> describes the result of that event.
> * This topic is somewhat complicated since other UserInteraction
> subclasses are aggregates.
>
> == Core Proposal ==
>
> * Add a 'Comment' type, a subclass (e.g. like
> [http://schema.org/Review Review]) of [http://schema.org/CreativeWork
> CreativeWork].
> * Clarify that the existing [http://schema.org/UserComments
> UserComments] class represents the [http://schema.org/UserInteraction
> UserInteraction] event that creates it.
> * TODO: what properties do we want, if any; or indicate re-use of
> 'author', 'dateCreated', 'name' (for dc:title),
> * (Stephane), "A comment body property should be created for the
> Comment type (I guess it would be called commentBody following the
> same convention as articleBody for the type Article)." (how do we
> handle markup?)
>
> == Issues ==
>
> * Do we have a property linking a UserComments instance (ie. some
> UserInteraction) to its resulting Comment?
> * Do we have any comment-specific properties, or CreativeWork gives us
> all we need.
> * Address here also other confusions around the UserComments class,
> such as that its siblings are aggregates and the example goofy?
> * Recursion; how useful is 'discusses' for linking comments in a
> thread, since a Comment is a legitimate CreativeWork now?
> * Examples [
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Jan/0056.html
> from Drupal/SIOC] for potential vocabulary around Comment.
>
> == Discussion ==
>
> This came up [
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/schemaorg-discussion/N7u4Z8356Ao/JIiFO0WWNF4J
> previously], but most recent discussion:
>
> * [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Jan/0037.html
> Comment versus UserComments], from Daniel Dullis:
> ** "I wanted to raise an issue about how to represent comments (e.g.
> on blog posts).
> ** There are many subtypes of CreativeWork, but Comment is not one of
> them. Perhaps it should be?
> ** Instead, it seems like comments are to be represented by
> UserComments, which is a subtype of UserInteractions. But apart from
> UserComments those types appear to be for aggregates, not for an
> individual comment/tweet/like/etc. The type names are plural and don't
> really fit for non-aggregates.
> ** I think the aggregate types are useful, but for each aggregate type
> I'd like to have a clearly defined type for the individual thing.
> What's the right way to achieve that?"
> * Stéphane Corlosquet
> ** I agree that Comment would be a relevant type to be added to
> schema.org. There was a similar discussion on the previous mailing
> list where this topic was discussed, in particular the confusion
> around markup of the aggregates. I'm pasting some of the conversation
> below. See also the whole http://schema.org/UserInteraction
> inconsistency problems thread.
> ** Note that since its launch in January 2011, Drupal 7 exposes each
> individual comment and the aggregate number of comments in RDFa using
> the SIOC vocabulary, so I'd love to see a schema.org equivalent for
> both individual comments and the aggregate number of comments for a
> given (blog) post.
> * Dan Brickley
> ** mentioned (but won't advocate for, and nobody supported) an
> alternate design: "Even though we don't assert that Comment is
> subclass of CreativeWork, we also don't anywhere assert that no
> comments are CreativeWorks. It might be there are some idioms where
> treating some comments as creative works in this way is useful.
> * Adrian Giurca
> ** I believe that potential http://schema.org/Comment shoud encode the
> creative work by someone while http://schema.org/UserComments encodes
> the action event of doing a comment.
> ** In fact, the property discusses:CreativeWork of UserComments looks
> to confirm this view: An UserComments is an action event of an user
> that post a Comment (as Creative Work) referred by "discusses".
> ** Therefore I would say that introducing http://schema.org/Comment is
> a straight solution. In addition "discusses" may refer
> http://schema.org/Comment
>
> ... indicates a general consensus towards the design documented here:
> a new class. How much can we agree about what to add alongside it?
> properties?
>
>
> == Example sites==
>
> These [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Jan/0047.html
> example sites] show the kind of markup we hope will adopt this
> vocabulary.
>
> *
> http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32069983&postID=7424272840613555167
> *
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/keystone-pipeline-obama-administration_n_1213136.html[at
> the bottom]
> *
> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/f-b-i-makes-insider-trading-arrests/[inside
> the comment block inserted by Javascript]
> * http://sportsnation.espn.go.com/fans/mooseisbeast3599/
> * http://www.youtube.com/user/4thawt/feed
>
>
>
> [[Category:WebSchemas]]
> [[Category:WebSchemaProposals]]
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 22:33:38 GMT

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