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

Re: Proposal: Audiobook

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:12:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv86ak93-wP_faC3U0SXvzA59buPpRA6Pf31GukZCsHC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I completely agree that there isn't a single solution that will work in all
cases. I think we should just use a pragmatic (i.e., case by case) analysis.

guha


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Guha,
>
> The discussion is about the difference between ontology definition and
> instance creation. When is it appropriate to define multiple types in the
> ontology definition vs. assigning multiple types to an instance?
>
> To librarians this is the "pre-coordinated vs. post-coordinated" issue,
> but for non-librarians it probably makes more sense to talk about comparing
> complex and "complete" concepts vs. modular and combinable concepts.
>
> I don't think there is a single answer because it is contextual, but I can
> see some advantages in creating simple ontology definitions that can be
> combined in various ways at the time of instance creation.
>
> kc
>
>
>
>
> On 9/25/13 6:50 AM, Guha wrote:
>
>> Clearly, the syntax needs to support multiple types for an object. We
>> already do that ... not sure I see the issue.
>>
>> Sorry for being slow ...
>>
>> guha
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Martin Hepp
>> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.**org <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-**unibw.org<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Karen,
>>     good that we have consensus.
>>
>>     Dan, Guha: I think the issue of whether multi-type entities should
>>     be solved
>>
>>     a) at markup time or
>>     b) in the vocabulary
>>
>>     is of generic relevance - do you have an opinion on that?
>>
>>     I think that for types that are not disjoint but also only loosely
>>     related (like an AudioBook used as a Product), it is much cleaner
>>     and flexible to recommend using both types at markup time.
>>
>>     This also decouples the evolution of such needs / use cases from the
>>     evolution of the schema.org <http://schema.org> spec - site owners
>>     do not have to wait for an update to schema.org <http://schema.org>,
>>
>>     and search engines can learn from the appearance of new patterns.
>>
>>     Martin
>>
>>     On Sep 24, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > On 9/24/13 11:40 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>      >> Hi Karen,
>>      >> as already posted earlier today:
>>      >
>>      >>
>>      >> Simply use the offers property from Product or the itemOffered
>>     property from offer and make the AudioBook (or other object) of type
>>     AudioBook AND Product.
>>      >
>>      > Yes, thanks, Martin. I saw that on your reply to Dan and that
>>     seems to be exactly what we need.
>>      >
>>      > kc
>>      >
>>      > --
>>      > Karen Coyle
>>      > kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>>      > m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>>
>>      > skype: kcoylenet
>>      >
>>
>>     ------------------------------**--------------------------
>>     martin hepp
>>     e-business & web science research group
>>     universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>>
>>     e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.**org<hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>> >
>>     phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-**4217>
>>     fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-**4620>
>>
>>     www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>>     http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>>     skype:   mfhepp
>>     twitter: mfhepp
>>
>>     Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>>     ==============================**==============================**=====
>>     * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 16:13:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:31 UTC