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

Re: Comment versus UserComments

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 21:41:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFqep=x1SwE1hFcvD9FzaJ6hSWipPSo0vhH-fcKTR1bLjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>, "Sandhaus, Evan" <sandhes@nytimes.com>, public-vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 9 March 2012 09:51, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, 9 March 2012, Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com> wrote:
>> Regarding http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Comment#Core_Proposal :
>> The "issues" section implies that the text property might be added to
>> Comment:
>>   "text" is added; it carries the textual body of the comment.
>> Can we remove that bullet and add "text" to the list of properties that
>> are inherited (previous bullet)?
>> Thanks everyone,
>
> Good point; fixed. Thanks,

Just to close out another issue. The schema.org partners resolved
today, on the basis of these discussions and the materials in the
wiki, to move ahead with the proposal described in
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Comment

Specifically,

* Add a 'Comment' type, a subclass (e.g. like Review) of CreativeWork.
"A comment on an item - for example, a comment on a blog post."
* Clarify that the existing UserComments class represents the
UserInteraction event that creates it.
* Add a 'text' property to the CreativeWork class, whose value is the
Text of the work (and hence of the comment); loosely analogous to the
'audio' and 'video' properties of CreativeWork.

I have closed https://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/12
accordingly, and actioned myself to reflect this consensus into a
change request at schema.org.
https://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/actions/5

Thanks everyone for the design discussions and advice,

cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 20:42:09 GMT

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