Re: new itemscope or not?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> I agree with your observation: "So schema.org's property "url" should
> only be available for "CreativeWork", not for "Thing" as it is right
> now."
>
> OTOH, it would be nice if schema:Thing had a "page" property that was
> equivalent to foaf:page.
>
>
A more useful name of that property instead of "page", which is too
generic, would be to name it "about" which is a url property on
schema:Thing itself... (and document that it is for any url pointing to an
HTML page ABOUT the Thing, and not to be used for RELATED to the Thing.)
 Something like this:

urlURLA URL that has content about the item that gives a description, or
definition of the Thing, or is an official website of the Thing.  Thing:url
property should not be used for Related things. (for that see relatedLink)

We do have schema.org/AboutPage already...however, I wonder if it could
simply be a documentation change to schema:Thing url property as above ?

In Freebase, we have a proposal to identify the following Use Cases...

There are many more, but these are the specific ones that motivated this
proposal:

   1. *Metadata for content objects not in Freebase (CDB)* (e.g,. Hulu
   videos) - So in the case of Hulu videos, it might be the format, embed
   code, etc.
   2. *Topic weblinks* - Related webpages for a topic (currently
   /common/topic/webpage).
   3. *Official Web Site* (e.g., apple.com for the Apple, Inc. topic) - A
   way to differentiate the official website from other weblinks.
   4. *Publisher tags* (e.g., blogs, WSJ, etc.) - If a content publisher is
   using Freebase for tagging their content, they need to be able to assert
   that in a permissioned way (it's *their* opinion of their content).


Taking use cases 2, 3, and 4 into account...where do those use cases fit
into Schema.org mapping ?
Anyone ? :)

-- 
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry