Re: Proposal: accept Comment item type for CreativeWork/comment

Hi all,

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:03 PM, John Breslin <john.breslin@nuigalway.ie>wrote:

>  Hi George -
>
> I agree – comment pointing to UserComments doesn’t make sense.
>

yes, I would expect to find the actual comments there, not the interactions
related to user / comments. I note there is no property in
http://schema.org/CreativeWork or http://schema.org/Comment that has
Comment as range, in other words, what property should one use to link a
CreativeWork to its comments?

This wasn't part of the resolution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Mar/0077.html


>
> The description of comment property is “Comments, typically from users, on
> this CreativeWork.” so it sounds like they are pointing to the comments
> themselves. But UserComments, as a sub-type of UserInteractions, is just a
> number.
>
> How can this be fixed without breaking existing deployments?
>
> More generally I’d like to include this in the Discussion proposal to have
> a proper way of threading (or not threading) these comments / posts...
>

I agree. In Drupal 7, where we link comments to their containing post and
also (in the case of threaded comments) to their parent comment, we used
sioc:reply_of. I think schema.org should have an equivalent property,
either 'reply_of', or its inverse 'has_reply'. These properties have at
least the benefit of being more explicit than 'comment'. And it looks like
we can't really change the semantics of schema:comment now assuming it's
been deployed in the wild.

Steph.


>
> John
> --
> John Breslin http://johnbreslin.org http://linkd.in/johnbreslin
> Lecturer, Electronic Engineering, NUI Galway http://www.eee.nuigalway.ie
> Researcher, Social Software and Semantic Web, DERI http://www.deri.ie
>
>


-- 
Steph.