- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:23:36 +0000
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Hi folks A few things on the schema.org front: 1. Back in April there was some discussion towards an improved model for Actions/Activities. I have just uploaded a new work-in-progress document giving a first minimal version of a new approach, based on discussion amongst the schema.org partners. It is still in rough form but there should be enough to give a good impression of the thinking behind it. The draft describes some vocabulary structures that allow description of potential/possible future actions, as well as actions/activities that have occurred. While this touches on themes addressed by a variety of other efforts (including but not limited to RSS/Atom/ActivityStreams for past-tense 'activities'; Good Relations for commerce-related action opportunities; WebIntents, ...), we have focussed for now on describing a basic core structure that balances simplicity and expressiveness. A fairly short PDF document http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/7/79/Schema.orgActionsMinimaldraft.pdf is linked from http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ActivityActions 2. The Audience proposal; based on the RDFa schema in https://bitbucket.org/elderos/schemaorg/src I've built a test version of the schema.org site that includes the Audience proposal (see http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Audience ). The draft site is at http://sdo99a.appspot.com e.g. see http://sdo99a.appspot.com/Audience This is the second use of the HTML+RDFa+RDFS extension machinery I mentioned recently (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Nov/0011.html). More should follow - there are quite a few proposals pretty much ready, so I'll first put them up as individual test sites for review. 3. Class/Property There are several cases (including the above-mentioned Actions draft) where it is useful within schema.org to have a first class type representing the notion of 'Class', and of 'Property'. This is rather meta and while it is not something designed for mainstream webmasters to encounter, it will help with structuring and documenting the vocabulary. I have written up a proposal for adding these (and aliasing them to rdfs:Class, rdf:Property) at http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgMetaSchema ...alongside a proposal to use schema.org/domainIncludes and schema.org/rangeIncludes in our RDFa representation of the schema. Comments on any / all of the above are welcomed; ideally in the WebSchemas area of the W3C wiki or here on public-vocabs. If you reply by mail please adjust the Subject line to match your topic... cheers, Dan
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 19:24:07 UTC