- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:42:26 -0700
- To: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Agreed, with the caveat that my message isn't at all about the details of the types and their properties and their ranges at schema.org (which I find rather lacking, by the way, but it should be possible to overcome these problems with some fancy footwork) but is instead about how and what data model underlies schema.org and what constitutes unexceptional data sources according to schema.org. peter On Oct 24, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote: > This thread, and the SKOS one before it, are fascinating exchanges with insightful analysis of the tension between a simple, largely unstructured, bottom-up schema, with the emergence of interest in more structured frameworks that can provide coherence and linkages into other actionable knowledge structures. > > Is schema.org meant to be simply a deck of useful key-value specifications a la Wikipedia infoboxes or microformats? Or, is it meant to be a basis for more useful work down the line? > > If the latter, I think there is much to be re-evaluated here going forward. This observation applies both to schema.org's mapping vocabulary as well as to its internal structure and consistency. > > Thanks, Mike > > On 10/24/2013 10:26 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> The purpose of this exercise was mostly curiosity in the end, at least after I discovered all the strangenesses, but certainly started with desire to use schema.org information for real. >> >> peter >> >> On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Mostly right. See below for corrections. What is the purpose of this 'reconstruction', if I may ask? >>> >>> guha >> >> >
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 04:42:57 UTC