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

Re: Comment versus UserComments

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:47:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpJawWqxbfS6Xr0p3ArPFnfOLR0rh0S96hMnjK1iq0EGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Thursday, 1 March 2012, Daniel Dulitz wrote:
>
> This looks good. +1 to the "bodyText" idea of a common property for all similar types.
>
> At what level in the type hierarchy would "bodyText" go?
>
First reaction: CreativeWork. Second thought: WebPage? Or
WebPageElement ... Third reaction, ... back on CreativeWork.

http://schema.org/Article has articleBody (Text) The actual body of the article.
http://schema.org/Review has reviewBody (Text) The actual body of the review.

...we could position this as a super-property of those, although that
is not necessary. All of these share Microdata's difficulty with
having markup-valued properties but of all these, bodyText of a
comment is the shortest and likely suffers least from that.

Sometimes comments show up as a separate page, sometimes within a
page; so picking between WebPage and WebPageElement seemed difficult.
So my preference here is to add bodyText as a property of
CreativeWork. Second choice would be as a property of Comment, but
that seems overly restrictive.

For its values, I'd prefer to leave open at 'Thing' for now (some
breathing room while we think about markup values); or 'Text' if we
must. We can always add more expected values later.

How does that sound?

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 19:47:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:49:00 GMT