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

RE: currentModel attribute for /Product

From: Kenley Lamaute <kenleyl@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:18:34 +0000
To: Joshua J Wulf <jwulf@redhat.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BD5BA203CA34334EA417E2701A80AEB63B5BBFB1@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Good point. ProductFamilyURI and ReleaseDate seem like a winning combo.
________________________________
From: Joshua J Wulf [jwulf@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:11 PM
To: Kenley Lamaute
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Re: currentModel attribute for /Product

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<mailto: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




  *   Open in Google Docs Viewer
  *   Open link in new tab
  *   Open link in new window
  *   Open link in new incognito window
  *
  *   Download file
  *   Copy link address
  *   Edit PDF File on PDFescape.com
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 05:19:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 July 2012 05:19:11 GMT