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

Re: Vocabularies for Technical Publishing

From: Joshua Wulf <jwulf@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org, Kenley Lamaute <kenleyl@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <3e4d5443-b042-4fc3-8e1e-35a54e1ea26a@zmail16.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
[Apologies if I'm totally missing what's going on here - I appreciate your patience!]


Kenley wrote:
> <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
>       <p>
>         <strong>Applies to:</strong>
>         <span itemprop="name">Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2</span>
>       </p>
>       <meta itemprop="model" content="2008 R2"/>
>       <meta itemprop="currentModel" content="2012"/>
> </div>

Something like:

<meta itemprop="currentModel" content="http://www.microsoft.com/products/currentversionlist/sqlserver">

makes more sense to me.

That way you can update it once in one place, and all published documentation with your metadata is up-to-date with the latest version of the product. 

We currently do static publishing, and updating and republishing all historical versions in every language for every release seems a little excessive. On top of that: since our material is Creative Commons-licensed, we have no guarantee that we could republish all the copies of it on the web. If we published it with a reference for the current release metadata, then we could republish that each time, and all copies of our material would be up-to-date.

I took away from Charlie's earlier response that this is possible (using a reference rather than a literal). Am I correct? I was hoping to see an example of how it would work if so. What would the URI return when a human or a search engine dereferences it? 

- Josh

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
> To: "Kenley Lamaute" <kenleyl@microsoft.com>
> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:44:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Vocabularies for Technical Publishing
> 
> Hi Kenley,
> 
> Where are with this, from your perspective?
> 
> I like the idea of using 'about', primarily because the 'current' in
> 'currentProduct' leaves me worrying about stale data. Many sites
> begin
> their life database-backed but then end up 'pickled'/'frozen' for
> various reasons (e.g. they're PHP generated and then security holes
> lead to the dynamic generation being replaced with a one-time
> snapshot).
> 
> Can you suggest a final issue list for getting these changes added?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Dan
> 
> On 16 June 2012 08:03, Kenley Lamaute <kenleyl@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > ·         aboutProduct and currentProduct warrants further
> > discussion. You
> > bring up a good point on simplifying the description, and we may be
> > able to
> > simplify the proposal even more by simply using ‘about’ to refer to
> > the
> > ‘Product’ item.
> >
> > The scenario for aboutProduct and currentProduct:
> >
> > It is very common for steps in technical documentation to vary
> > between
> > product versions, and multiple supported versions of a product
> > often exists
> > in a marketplace concurrently.
> > As a product matures the content for that product version
> > accumulates links
> > / popularity. This becomes a problem when a new product releases to
> > the
> > marketplace and customers search for information on implementing
> > the new
> > product.  Often times newer content is often difficult to find
> > because it
> > must compete with legacy content which overwhelmingly appears first
> > in
> > search results.
> >
> > The purpose of aboutProduct and currentProduct is to help search
> > engines
> > disambiguate between product versions, and offer newer content for
> > the
> > product when appropriate.
> >
> >
> >
> > With this in mind, instead of using aboutProduct and currentProduct
> > , a more
> > elegant solution may be to refer to the ‘Product’ item using the
> > ‘about’
> > property that we inherit from CreativeWork.
> >
> >
> >
> > Example:
> >
> >
> >
> > Here 'about' describes the Product and version pertaining to the
> > content; as
> > well as, version of the most recent shipping product:
> >
> >
> >
> > <div itemprop="about" itemscope
> > itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
> >
> >       <p>
> >
> >         <strong>Applies to:</strong>
> >
> >         <span itemprop="name">Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2</span>
> >
> >       </p>
> >
> >       <meta itemprop="model" content="2008 R2"/>
> >
> >       <meta itemprop="currentModel" content="2012"/>
> >
> > </div>
> >
> >
> >
> > Here 'about' also informs where to get more information on the
> > overall
> > concept:
> >
> >
> >
> > <span itemprop="about" itemscope
> > itemtype="http://schema.org/CreativeWork">
> >
> >       <meta itemprop="name" content="Database management System"/>
> >
> >       <meta itemprop="url"
> >       content="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dbms"/>
> >
> > </span>
> >
> >
> >
> > Interested in the communities thoughts on this. I’ll kick-off a
> > separate
> > thread to get input from the community on adding “currentModel”
> > property to
> > Product.
> >
> >
> >
> > ·         Re: External enumeration: I concur, that using the method
> > described in the External Enumeration proposal could work as well.
> > I expect
> > that search engines would support both.
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Kenley
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 14:18:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 July 2012 14:18:34 GMT