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

currentModel attribute for /Product

From: Kenley Lamaute <kenleyl@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:59:56 +0000
To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
CC: "Dan Brickley (danbri@google.com)" <danbri@google.com>, Joshua Wulf <jwulf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <BD5BA203CA34334EA417E2701A80AEB634FD8579@SN2PRD0310MB384.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
This thread is a continuation of  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Jun/0046.html 

It proposes 'currentModel' as a complimentary attribute to the existing 'model' property for the Product item.

Its use is that when a user requests information about a product, but does not specify a version, search engine could compare the value of search result pages' "Product model" to the "Product currentModel", and favor results with the most recent material.

The value for currentModel can either be string literal or an external reference. See - http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ExternalEnumerations


Interested in input from Dan and others on if using URL for external enumeration satisfies Josh's post below? 
 
 From Josh>>
	I don't know if there is an existing schema.org pattern to deal with this, but something like the xi:include pattern of xml seems like a good fit. A URI is given, and the content returned by dereferencing that URI 	is accepted as the value. So in this case, you request the URI, you get back a string, and you take the string as the value.

	I would say that an approach such as this - the option to specify the metadata inline or as a reference that is read from somewhere else - is an appropriate optional pattern where a page includes metadata 	about something other than itself or its content; and it's something that affects more than just the Technical Article schema.

	Also, as you indicated, such an approach is useful in practice only if search engines dereference the URI to get the value.

	Is there any traction for an xi:include like mechanism for metadata injection via URI reference* in schema.org schemas? Or is it better to say: "Don't populate this value if you can't guarantee that you'll update 	it"? Because the value of the data decreases when it's unreliable.

	- Josh

	* Which is essentially the same pattern as implementing it in javascript when server-side dynamic assembly is not available. 

<<

-Kenley


Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 19:01:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 19:01:00 GMT