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

Re: Comment versus UserComments

From: Jean Delahousse <delahousse.jean@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 00:16:55 +0100
Message-Id: <A2C1E6D5-D226-4737-A598-1325A3BE35E6@gmail.com>
Cc: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Hello,
I think the choice to manage "comment" as a subclass of creativework is both logical, simple and powerful 
It would also enable to have comments on comments which is useful.

Btw this afternoon I tried to find a way to link articles to an article as "relatedarticle" or "relatedcreativework" and I did not find any way to do so. Is there a way to do it?

Cheers
Jean



+33 6 01 22 48 55, delahousse.jean@gmail.com, skype: jean.delahousse
@jdelahousse, http://jean-delahousse.info 

Le 1 mars 2012 à 00:01, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> a écrit :

> On 29 February 2012 23:33, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> No reason at all. That's the main proposal:
> 
> * Add a 'Comment' type, a subclass (e.g. like Review) of CreativeWork.
> 
>> though some properties from CreativeWork are overkill for Comment, it would
>> save us from having to recreate properties for Comment.
> 
> Absolutely. Also note that other extensions are also enriching
> CreativeWork. I'm not sure the LMRI properties explicitly only work
> with that class, but it seems to be their main target. So educators
> and 'virtual learning' software systems for example might consider
> combining "Comment" with properties from LRMI that address
> education-related scenarios.
> 
>> There should be at least a property for the body... aside: commentBody, articleBody, is it good practice to include the type in a property?
> 
> Maybe this identifies a need for a generic 'bodyText' (or similar) 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.
> 
> There's always a way, if you don't mind ugly. In RSS feeds for example
> there used to be a lot of entity-escaping. Not that I'd recommend
> this!
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 23:17:29 GMT

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