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

Re: Proposal: Looking inside tables

From: Omar Benjelloun <benjello@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:58:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CACsq2mkzZsMuVwsWG4KHgN6aRUv2uL=eS9EXNBYv9G3-tdYwjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: Guha <guha@google.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
One issue with the 'SetOf/X' approach is how to apply it when X is a class
defined outside of the schema.org vocabulary.

For schema.org: http://schema.org/SetOf/Painting means SetOf (
http://schema.org/Painting)

What about a set of http://my.domain.org/PathTo/MyClass ?

Should that be represented as:

- http://schema.org/SetOf/<escaped_url_for_my_class>

or http://my.domain.org/SetOf/PathTo/MyClass ? Something else?

-Omar


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
<scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote:

> I think I like that, it's a good compromise to mitigate the situation, at
> least applications which would do something with a item of type 'Painting'
> would ignore this data item. The proposal should then include a step to
> remove the 'SetOf/' prefix and apply 'Painting' to each row.
>
> Steph.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, an earlier version of the proposal from Omar dealt with this
>> very well by having the typeof='SetOf/Painting'. So, applications that are
>> aware of this kind of markup can do the right thing, while others don't
>> have the unintended consequence.
>>
>> guha
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet <
>> scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From the proposal:
>>>
>>> <table typeof="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/">
>>>   <thead>
>>>     <tr>
>>>       <th property="image">Image</th>
>>>       <th property="name">Title</th>
>>>       <th property="dateCreated">Year</th>
>>>       <th>Technique</th>
>>>       <th>Dimensions</th>
>>>       <th property="contentLocation">Gallery</th>
>>>     </tr>
>>>   </thead>
>>> <tbody>...</tbody>
>>> </table>
>>>
>>> It should be noted that parsers which are not aware of this table
>>> extension would generate this information:
>>> <>
>>>    rdf:type schema:Painting;
>>>    schema:image "Image";
>>>    schema:name "Title";
>>>    schema:dateCreated "Year";
>>>    schema:contentLocation "Gallery" .
>>>
>>> How do you plane to cope with this situation? Leave it be? Would it have
>>> unintended consequences on some applications?
>>>
>>> Steph.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steph.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Steph.
>



-- 
Omar Benjelloun | benjello@google.com | (415) 845-8516
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 18:59:42 UTC

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