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

Re: Redefine and reuse?

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:27:18 -0700
Message-ID: <51EF1156.6090907@kcoyle.net>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 7/23/13 2:58 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> 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 ?

No, I hadn't thought of that. I would be hesitant to suggest that anyone 
use proposals until they've been accepted into schema.org. It might make 
sense to have a "beta" capability for testing, however, although anyone 
making use of a beta would need to know that things could change.

> 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

I had understood that the extension mechanism has fallen into 
dis-repair, of a sorts, and needs to be seriously revised. Dan Scott 
posted very recently a request for more clarification on extensions. So 
until then, perhaps it isn't a good idea to point people to it as a 
solution?

The other aspect of extensions is what search engine services one might 
expect from them. I'm curious if any live sites using the Product 
Ontology can speak about their experience?

kc


> 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
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     Thad, perhaps I was too flip. We cannot assume that everyone will
>     read everything on the schema.org <http://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 <http://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>
>         <mailto: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>
>         <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>
>         <mailto: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 <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>
> Thad on LinkedIn <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
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 23:27:48 UTC

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