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

Re: Proposal: Looking inside tables

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:07:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaP0cbCp7Y41ZjoSX7--qFt5Mb9yj3XadJQF33OBRN=tmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: Omar Benjelloun (عمر بنجلون) <benjello@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
In my mind, I was sort of flipping things around...and telling a parser
that the set of attributes are my own, or borrowed from Schema.org

I was thinking along the lines of an "attribute set" being dictated by the
vocab=

So, in my example, the "category", "class", and "rowstype" attributes are
assumed from Schema.org ... where each would be assumed to mean
schema.org/category , schema.org/class , schema.org/rowstype  without
having to fully express each one.  I was thinking having the vocab= would
mean that all the attributes expressed inside the <table> tag would be
coming from whatever was on the right side of the = equals sign.

But as Dan pointed out....that is probably not a winning design.



On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Quick feedback Omar and others,
>>
>> <table typeof="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/">
>>
>> I would rather see "typeof" be renamed to "rowstypeof" or simply
>> "rowstype" to truly indicate that all the rows themselves have the implied
>> type and not the Table Set type or class.  This way we can reserve the
>> Table "typeof" for higher kinded types, classes, and categories if need be ?
>>
>> My thinking and expression would look something like this :
>>
>> <table typeof="Artwork" rowstype="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/">
>>
>> cooler ideas also embedding the use of  http://schema.org/Class :
>>
>> <table category="OnSale" class="Artwork" rowstype="Painting" vocab="
>> http://schema.org/">
>>
>
> In addition to what Dan said, these new attributes would also not be valid
> HTML. Sticking to existing attributes will avoid validation issues.
>
> Steph.
>
>
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Omar Benjelloun (عمر بنجلون) <
>> benjello@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Many useful datasets on the Web take the form of tables. The goal of this
>>> proposal is to provide a simple, schema.org-friendly way to "look inside"
>>> these tables, and map their contents into triples.
>>>
>>> This is an early draft proposal developed at Google. We're seeking
>>> feedback from the community.
>>>
>>> The proposal is attached to this e-mail, and will be uploaded to the
>>> WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals page shortly.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Omar
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Thad
>> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steph.




-- 
-Thad
Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 18:07:59 UTC

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