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

Re: new itemscope or not?

From: Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:16:37 +0200
Message-ID: <504DBE05.3060809@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
The schema.org specification seems to support Jeff's interpretation of 
the property "url" as "the WWW-address where an electronic copy of the 
thing that s described can be downloaded". From 
http://www.schema.org/Thing:

Property: url
Expected Type: URL
Description: URL of the item.

Only something that can be downloaded (an information resource) can have 
a URL. So schema.org's property "url" should only be available for 
"CreativeWork", not for "Thing" as it is right now. A person for example 
can't have a url. A person can have a website (which is an information 
resource) and this website has an url. But then I cannot find any 
property like "website" or "homepage" for any of schema.org's classes. 
Combined with the fact that "url" is avalable for class "Thing" (i.e. 
for everything) I suppose that "url" is in fact used ambiguosly:

A book can have a url where you can download the book's text.
A person can have a url where you find information about this person.

Or in other words: "url" means something rather general: "There is a web 
document related to the resource that can be retrieved at this url." 
Essentially its just a "see also" to a document on the web.

Cord


Am 08.09.2012 04:14, schrieb Young,Jeff (OR):
> If I was Godz, I would NOT assume they are the same thing. I would use
> schema:url thusly for those decreasingly rare situations where somebody
> (especially a remote observer) wants to describe something that is
> honest-to-godz located on the Web. For example:
>
> @prefix observer: <http://example.org/observer/> .
>
> observer:12345 a <http://purl.org/library/Thesis>;
> 	schema:name "Architectural Styles and the Design of
> Network-based Software Architectures";
> 	schema:author <http://viaf.org/viaf/26681119>;
> 	schema:url
> <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm>.
>
> As a matter of principle, Roy's (HTML) thesis COULD be upgraded to be
> self-describing with some hidden markup (either RDFa 1.1 or Microdata)
> and a trivial Apache rewrite (303 redirect) upgrade to www.ics.ici.edu
> to replace the observer URI.
>
> OTOH, if somebody decides that schema:url should be treated the same as
> "itemid" (Microdata), "resource" (RDFa Lite 1.1), "rdf:about" (RDF/XML),
> etc. then schema:url is a wasted opportunity and we (i.e. the pedantic
> observers of reality) would need to find a new vocabulary term fill this
> void.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeni Tennison [mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 3:15 PM
>> To: Ed Summers
>> Cc: Dawson, Laura; Thad Guidry; public-vocabs@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: new itemscope or not?
>>
>>
>> On 7 Sep 2012, at 20:03, Ed Summers wrote:
>>> It would be interesting to know if the HTML spec allowed multiple
>>> identifiers, similar to how other HTML attributes work:
>>
>> "The itemid attribute, if specified, must have a value that is a valid
>> URL potentially surrounded by spaces."
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/#attr-itemid
>>
>> So that would be 'no', not according to spec.
>>
>> I've often wondered whether the schema.org 'url' property is meant to
>> be synonymous with itemid. I'm not sure what happens in schema.org
>> interpreters when you specify one/other/both/multiple urls...
>>
>> Jeni
>> --
>> Jeni Tennison
>> http://www.jenitennison.com
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Cord Wiljes
Semantic Computing Group
Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Bielefeld University

Phone: +49 521 106 12036
Mail: cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
WWW: http://www.sc.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de/people/wiljes

Room H-123
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 10:17:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 10:17:10 GMT