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

Re: Redefine and reuse?

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:58:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaN7J03dsqyRRDY7yHe-TbQ3=cTF+CiYcEPpHHgTxdhdQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Karen,

Is it your wish or intent to have things bubble up into Schema.org quicker,
perhaps even existing proposals and extensions, with the idea that they are
"beta" or "in_proposal" ...rather than them living under the
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/.....
<http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas> until
they are "accepted" into Schema.org officially ?

I'd be for a "beta" label somewhere on the main site, but the problem with
that is the main Schema.org site is not accessible for editing (it is not a
wiki, and never intended to be), and so it was determined that a Wiki would
be best to mock things up for proposal.  It would be "really, really swell"
to let folks know that come to Schema.org that many cool things are
"in_proposal" without having them to look away too much from the main
Schema.org site... I agree with that, if that is the mantra your trying to
draw out.   There is a lot of room for improvement upon the main Schema.org
site itself that could be done for better collaboration all around, imho.

 (  NOTE TO DAN !  :-)  )
One thing that could really help is on the main site landing page say and
note :

1. We allow extensions and if you do not find what your looking for, then
read our docs about Extending Schema.org at
http://www.schema.org/docs/extension.html
2. We have Many more additional Types and Properties not found yet in
Schema.org.  Some are in flux and under discussion and proposal, please
join the discussion at http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Thad, perhaps I was too flip. We cannot assume that everyone will read
> everything on the schema.org site before marking up some HTML. And we
> can't assume that everyone adding markup to a Web page is a "developer."
> The more apparent and accessible the schema information is, the more likely
> it is to be used. Expecting people to look for and make use of additional
> documentation in their particular area may not be a successful model.
>
> It looks to me like the medical community model is that experts will
> create the data, and everyone from the public to experts will consume it.
> They may be able to assume that those creating the data will be trained to
> do so. Bibliographic data is widely created by people who are not experts
> in bibliographic data creation, and who get no training in that area; this
> includes most authors, many readers (LibraryThing, GoodReads), and lot of
> merchants. (For the bibliographic skills of the latter, look at data
> provided by Amazon's third party booksellers.)
>
> I'd rather not expect that users of bibliographic data need to go further
> than users of, say, event information, in order to make use of schema.org.
> I actually want rank amateurs to be able to contribute in this area (unlike
> medicine, which for good reasons may wish to discourage amateurs). It may
> be a small barrier, but it could still be a barrier.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 7/23/13 1:15 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>
>> Actually Karen,
>>
>> Schema.org does indeed ONLY WORK by reading documentation and applying
>> it.  And the hope is that everyone does indeed read it, use it, and
>> promote it.  It is completely up to users & web developers to
>> implement...and something that does not have any effect or have any
>> synergy unless web developers and users embrace that documentation we
>> call, Schema.org   It means nothing without proper documentation AND the
>> use of it.
>>
>> (Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc, cannot force developers to make modifications
>> to their sites....as hard as they have tried.  Sure they can apply some
>> bot technology to make some assumptions about what we mean given a
>> certain tag or string...but that can only get you so far.  Ambiguity
>> rears its head often.  And that ambiguity is the basis for Schema.org,
>> least I remind you. :-)  )
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 7/23/13 7:43 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>         I suspect here one answer is "domain-specific documentation",
>>         along the
>>         lines of http://schema.org/docs/__**meddocs.html<http://schema.org/docs/__meddocs.html>
>>
>>         <http://schema.org/docs/**meddocs.html<http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html>>
>> - if we don't have an
>>         extension mechanism available that allows processors to fall back
>> to
>>         "sku" when they encounter "callnumber", then having a
>>         "Documentation for
>>         bibliographic types" page that says "Here's how you mark up
>>         items that
>>         you have available for sale or loan using Offer", with examples,
>>         should
>>         fill the gap reasonably well. Particularly if said documentation
>> is
>>         available _from_ the schema.org <http://schema.org> site.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Dan,
>>
>>     While not opposed to documentation or "best practices," given human
>>     nature I am wary of developing anything that only works if the users
>>     have read the documentation. ;-)
>>
>>
>>     kc
>>
>>     --
>>     Karen Coyle
>>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>
>>     ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>>     skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Thad
>> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/**en/thad_guidry<http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>> >
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/**thadguidry/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>> >
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>


-- 
-Thad
Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 21:59:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:28 UTC