W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2013

Re: schema.org proposal for extending Thing

From: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:40:17 -0400
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <787E198F-2BEC-497D-A6BD-D68DC62F74F5@opengeospatial.org>
To: Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>
Reading the sameThingAs property [1], I do think that would serve mainly the same purpose. Thing/link as I described it would be more general, allowing for more types of relationships between the resource and the link, but honestly, I think sameThingAs covers most requirements. 

I don't think Thing/url could be made to work for this purpose. You could do some mark up like that below, but the semantics would be too vague to do anything with it. 

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Place">
	<p class="headline" itemprop="name">First Baptist Church in America</p>
	<a href="picinside.html" itemprop="url">Here is a picture inside the church</url>
	<a href="picback.html" itemprop="url">Here is a picture of the back of the church</url>
	<a href="church.rdf" itemprop="url">This is some RDF about the church</url>
</div>

Just the fact that they are called out as "urls" about the place could tell  you that there's some relationship (but the documentation would have to make this clear) between the Thing and its child "url" properties. Is that enough semantics for the schema.org mission? Until now I didn't think it was, but maybe it is. It's a good debate to have...

[1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ThingIdentity

---
Raj
The OGC: Making location count.
http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh


On Apr 9, at 5:55 PM, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com> wrote:

> Raj, re your second proposal, can you clarify the difference between Thing/link, the existing Thing/url, and the object's id (microdata @itemid, RDFa @about)? Would Thing/link serve the same purpose as the proposed sameThingAs property?
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> I'm developing schema.org schema for points of interest (POIs), based on a lot of work on a conceptual model [1]. I've created an initial implementation using existing schema.org vocabulary -- particularly the Place object [2].
> 
> Two things seem to be omitted from the core schema, which are key components of our POI model. First is the idea of categorization, or freeform tagging, such as is present in the Atom category element [3]. This is a concept used in the POI model, but seems incredibly useful for any type of object, and therefore I believe category should be a property of Thing.
> 
> Second is the idea of related links. The concept of identifying related resources is a widespread requirement present in most information architectures. HTML has it [4]. Atom has it [5]. Semantic technology such as RDF is practically based on it. Why not schema.org? In the POI work, we adopted the IANA link relation types [6], but we weren't totally happy with those. Doesn't it seem like schema.org's Thing needs a link property?
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Data_Model
> [2] http://openpois.ogcnetwork.net/pois/51f2e335-781e-4651-bfe2-d54682238919
> [3] http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#category
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/links.html#h-12.3
> [5] http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#link
> [6] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
> 
> ---
> Raj
> The OGC: Making location count.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/rsingh
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:40:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC