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

Re: vocab idea: SatiricalArticle

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 18:16:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrVePjm76qxF2VhMeOv2XW5m6JpjNYX4jCAsjp0wiCrbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Gebhard <Andreas.Gebhard@gettyimages.com>
Cc: Егор Антонов <elderos@yandex-team.ru>, "Olson, Peter" <polson@marvel.com>, PDEC Research <lists@personaldataecosystem.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 4 May 2012 15:22, Andreas Gebhard <Andreas.Gebhard@gettyimages.com> wrote:
> Not a bad idea. "genre" points to a controlled vocabulary maintained by the IPTC and it wouldn't be too hard to discuss the addition of (comedy|satire|etc.) to that.

Thanks all. I agree that 'genre' in this case would be a more elegant
express things here. In general I'm not against having simple
low-content types, since both microdata and rdfa offer nice syntactic
support for them. But yes definitely pointing into an IPTC list of
genres, 'comedy' vs 'satire' etc. would be great.

I've just sent around a new ExternalEnumerations doc, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0009.html
... maybe we can work through the detail of this for 'genre'? Do you
have the relevant IPTC URLs, ideally some that are well-used in some
public datasets?

cheers,

Dan

> Andreas
>
> On May 1, 2012, at 23:41 , Егор Антонов wrote:
>
>> schema.org/Article has 'genre' property, cannot we use it for this purpose?
>> I think it's a bad practice to create a new type until it has its own properties
>> --
>> Egor
>>
>> 02.05.2012, 06:13, "Olson, Peter" <polson@marvel.com>:
>>> In an attempt to surgically extract all humor from this subject...wouldn't satire be a flag as part of a larger article type? I can maybe reach out - I have some contacts in the comedy world.
>>>
>>> - Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: PDEC Research [mailto:lists@personaldataecosystem.org]
>>> Sent: Sun 4/29/2012 8:40 PM
>>> To: Dan Brickley
>>> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: vocab idea: SatiricalArticle
>>>
>>> You could just add a parody bit. Then if the whole content is odd, the processor can throw a parody exception.
>>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > (disclaimer: thinking out loud)
>>> >
>>> > A smart-enough-to-know-better friend who shall remain nameless just
>>> > re-shared this link, having given it a quick check over (by searching)
>>> > and it looked real enough. At first glance it was Onion-esque but
>>> > wasn't obviously one of theirs, so got re-shared:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/13/mitt-romney-i-can-relate-to-black-people-my-ancestors-once-owned-slaves/
>>> >
>>> > The article is completely false, as
>>> > http://www.freewoodpost.com/disclaimer/ indicates.  If you view
>>> > source, you see itemtype="http://schema.org/Article" though (and a
>>> > load more metadata, ogp etc).
>>> >
>>> > I was wondering whether an addition such as
>>> > http://schema.org/SatiricalArticle could ever get traction.
>>> >
>>> > My initial conclusion is 'no', ... since most of the obvious
>>> > applications of 'SatiricalArticle' would likely slow the viral spread
>>> > of fake outrageous news around the Web, and so get little support from
>>> > publishers like the above, or
>>> > http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ http://christwire.org/
>>> > http://www.theonion.com/ http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/ etc. But you
>>> > never know, there might be some other incentives (e.g. disclaimers?)
>>> > that could support such an idea.
>>> >
>>> > So I thought I'd float the suggestion. If anyone here happens to know
>>> > such publishers, I'm curious of their perspective. Would a
>>> > machine-readable indicator of 'satire' be interesting to any of them?
>>> > Presumably they get much of their traffic from controversy caused by
>>> > reposting shocking "news". Of course there's always scope for that
>>> > same metadata to be created by third parties, but that's an old old
>>> > story (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICS-labels/ etc).
>>> >
>>> > cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Dan
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ******************************************************************************
>>>
>>> Nothing contained in this e-mail shall (a) be considered a legally binding agreement, amendment or modification of any agreement with Marvel, each of which requires a fully executed agreement to be received by Marvel or (b) be deemed approval of any product, packaging, advertising or promotion material, which may only come from Marvel's Legal Department.
>>>
>>> ******************************************************************************
>>>
>>> THINK GREEN - SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:17:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:49:03 GMT