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

Re: Comment versus UserComments

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:38:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpWt9fODtNZ93dGkbL2Xngtwi16e6pBAdQ1VZGYXNe3fQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
On 8 March 2012 17:32, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>
> +1

Thanks!

Ok, I've updated the Wiki summary, including what is hopefully a
near-final summary of the proposal:

http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Comment#Core_Proposal

Here's the raw wiki text directly:

== Core Proposal ==

Proposal finalised in thread leading to
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Mar/0059.html
march 8th agreement]:

* Add a 'Comment' type, a subclass (e.g. like
[http://schema.org/Review Review]) of [http://schema.org/CreativeWork
CreativeWork].
** A comment on an item - for example, a comment on a blog post.
* Clarify that the existing [http://schema.org/UserComments
UserComments] class represents the [http://schema.org/UserInteraction
UserInteraction] event that creates it.
* Add a 'text' property to the [http://schema.org/CreativeWork
CreativeWork] class, whose value is the [http://schema.org/Text Text]
of the work (and hence of the comment); loosely analogous to the
'audio' and 'video' properties of CreativeWork.
* Note that this (to some extent) this generalises the articleBody
property from [http://schema.org/Article Article] and the  reviewBody
property from [http://schema.org/Review Review], rather than adding
another class-specific property for Comment.
* Note that the 'text' property's value is plain text rather than
markup, due to Microdata's datamodel restrictions; defer any attempt
at markup-valued properties for later work.


There were a few fiddly details noted in the issues section. I've
drafted resolutions here:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Comment#Issues

"""
Do we have a property linking a UserComments instance (ie. some
UserInteraction) to its resulting Comment?
-not directly proposed at this time
-note that each UserComments interaction event can have a 'discusses'
link to the CreativeWork being commented upon.
-note that the resulting Comment (itself also a CreativeWork) will
typically be 'about' that same CreativeWork
-it seems plausible to expect the dateCreated of the Comment to
usually match the commentTime of the UserComments event; however,
perhaps spam filtering processes might mean this differ?

Do we have any comment-specific properties, or CreativeWork gives us
all we need.
-"author," "headline," are inherited from CreativeWork (amongst other
useful properties); also "about": for a Comment, if it points to an
item, the comment is about that item.
Address here also other confusions around the UserComments class, such
as that its siblings are aggregates and the example goofy?
-can be dealt with separately.
Recursion; how useful is 'discusses' for linking comments in a thread,
since a Comment is a legitimate CreativeWork now?
-discusses retains its original purpose (links event of a comment to
the thing commented on); 'about' links a Comment CreativeWork to the
other Work it comments upon."""


How does this look, folks?

Is anyone suffering for lack of a relationship from the UserComments
instance to the associated Comment? I'd suggest it could be added
later if a case is made.

Dan
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:38:38 GMT

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