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

Re: currentModel attribute for /Product

From: Joshua J Wulf <jwulf@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:11:42 +1000
Message-ID: <5012230E.2080405@redhat.com>
To: Kenley Lamaute <kenleyl@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Yes, a URI is best, because otherwise there is no guaranteed way to 
avoid namespace collision.

In that case, maybe ProductFamilyURI might be better? It could then 
additionally be dereferenceable, with no need to specify at this stage 
what that might return, but leaving the door open to future developments 
there...

On 07/27/2012 02:52 PM, Kenley Lamaute wrote:
>
> Yes any unique ID could do; however, we can certainly offer guidance. 
> One simple approach could be to use a URL for the product family ID 
> value, as a fully qualified URL is universally unique.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> *From:*Joshua J Wulf [mailto:jwulf@redhat.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:42 PM
> *To:* Kenley Lamaute
> *Cc:* public-vocabs@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: currentModel attribute for /Product
>
> There will be guidelines on how it is to be generated?
>
> On 07/27/2012 02:38 PM, Kenley Lamaute wrote:
>
>     Yes, the ID is to be universally unique.
>
>     *From:*Joshua J Wulf [mailto:jwulf@redhat.com]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:25 PM
>     *To:* Kenley Lamaute
>     *Cc:* public-vocabs@w3.org <mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: currentModel attribute for /Product
>
>     On 07/27/2012 02:16 PM, Kenley Lamaute wrote:
>
>         I've received direct feedback from several individuals on the
>         Product item proposal. After vetting several options, The most
>         elegant solution for reducing the complexity of requiring
>         metadata updates to already published pages, is to introduce
>         two new fields to 'Product':
>
>         .             releaseDate - the product release date
>
>         .             productFamilyID - unique product family
>         identifier reused across product versions. For example: <meta
>         itemprop='productFamilyID' content='123-456-789'/>.
>
>         This enables the scenario of a user searching for information
>         about a product (without specifying a version), and enabling
>         the search engine to favor results for the most recent product
>         material.
>
>         Example:
>
>                         *Legacy Product Content*
>
>                         Product = Windows Mobile 6.5
>
>                         Model = 6.5
>
>         releaseDate=10/6/2009
>
>         productFamilyID=123-456-789
>
>                         *Newer Product Content*
>
>                         Product = Windows Phone 7
>
>                         Model =7
>
>                         releaseDate=10/21/2010
>
>         productFamilyID=123-456-789
>
>         The example above shows how  multiple products can be
>         associated by a ProductFamilyID, so that anyone seeking
>         "mobile sdk for Windows" can be offered content that applies
>         to the latest technology first.
>
>         If there are no objections, I'd like to revise the original
>         proposal for adding 'currentModel' to product, and replace it
>         with this solution of adding 'releaseDate' and
>         'productFamilyID' to the Product item.
>
>         -Kenley
>
>
>     Killer.
>
>     Given that you can equate different Products by giving them the
>     same productFamilyID, does the productFamilyID need to be a UUID?
>
>     - Josh
>
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 05:12:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 July 2012 05:12:26 GMT