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

Re: Nature of change in Schema.org

From: Jindřich Mynarz <mynarzjindrich@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:27:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE=8Bu9AkWiee6Nz3ydZQzdRtz_QgRhJ7jazGHHP3aEDmEFSfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Hi Dan,

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>
> We don't have very rigid policies. But in general, there's a strong
> bias towards additive changes, since any existing vocabulary that is
> being used is unlikely to completely vanish.
>

That's what I wanted to know. Understanding that it's highly unlikely that
a backwards-incompatible extension is adopted is crucial for developing
extensions. In the light of this we need to re-think our proposed extension
for the job market, since we don't want to provide conflicting guidance to
vocabulary users (for example, by changing the range of properties).

Best,

Jindrich

-- 
Jindrich Mynarz
http://mynarz.net/#jindrich

The mechanism described in http://schema.org/docs/extension.html is
> pretty rough and minimal; there are some other techniques that we
> ought to also document. In particular, since schema.org was launched,
> two interesting things have happened:
>
> 1. W3C RDFa has been simplified as RDFa 1.1 (Lite), and looks a lot
> like Microdata in terms of complexity for publishers. However RDFa's
> data model deals more comfortably with the notion that some entity
> might be usefully described with two or more independently defined
> types. To approximate this within Microdata we added the slightly
> awkward property to schema.org "additionalType", since microdata
> assumes that all the main "itemtype"s for some item come from a common
> vocabulary. These changes improve the options for schema extensions.
>
> 2. Late last year, driven by the heavy work of integrating most of
> Good Relations into Schema.org, we implemented a new backend workflow
> for the site based on RDFa schema files.  Several of these (draft and
> live) can be found at
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext
>
> This approach means that much of the site is now generated by scripts
> that consult an ordered list of HTML/RDFa/RDFS files. Currently the
> system understands basic notions of type/subClassOf, labels/comments,
> and our rather scruffy/wiki-like notion of range/domain
> ("rangeIncludes", "domainIncludes") associations between types and
> properties. Now that we also have per-property pages on schema.org I
> expect to revisit this machinery to add in a few more useful
> facts-about-properties, including provenance/acknowledgements,
> super-subproperty hierarchies, mappings to other schemas.
>
> So what does this mean for 'extensions'?
>
> For schemas that happily have an independent existence, RDFa is a very
> respectable mechanism for deploying them in data that is otherwise
> schema.org-based. This does not mean that all schema.org search engine
> products will necessarily 'understand' the extension, but that is also
> true of some parts of 'core' schema.org too. Being part of schema.org
> indicates that the search engines are broadly supportive of the
> vocabulary; not necessarily that they all have shipping products that
> directly use every type or property.
>
> An example of RDFa-based extension in instance data here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jun/0028.html  :
>
> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" prefix="x:
> http://example.org/2013/person-extras123#" typeof="Person
> x:Minister">
>  <span property="name">Joan Smith</span>
> </div>
>
> ... this allows an extension type, "Minister" to be described properly
> in HTML/RDFa/etc, rather than leaving its definition to your
> imagination, as deploying http://schema.org/Person/Minister would do.
>
> For schemas aimed for inclusion, a similar approach (slightly edited
> schema files) gives configuration files that could ultimately be
> integrated into schema.org directly.
>
> I hope these quick notes help sketch how the technology picture has
> been evolving. They don't directly address the non-technical need for
> those of us at schema.org to more clearly communication our intentions
> around specific proposals and a workflow for progressing them - we
> will get there too! But I do believe the RDFa design at least allows
> for 'companion vocabularies' to be deployed alongside/within plain
> schema.org descriptions, without requiring everything be integrated
> immediately.
>
> Dan (allegedly on vacation)
>
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 09:28:47 UTC

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