- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:46:00 +0100
- To: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
- Cc: David Deering <david@touchpointdigital.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 9 April 2014 16:24, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote:
> -1 There's a difference between reference pages *about* the same entity and pages authored/controlled *by* the same entity.
Is it a difference we want to fully capture here? I also control my
homepage and various other pages that are not my socialAccount. But
I've just heard another problem which I think also counts against this
proposal: some entities (e.g. news organizations) have dozens of e.g.
Twitter accounts ('sports news', 'music' etc). While it might be
reasonable to point to them all with e.g. socialAccount, it might be
that the best reference page for the entity is something like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC --- and they'll all end up smushed
together in a confusing way.
So given Jason's point and this observation I'll back off from the
proposal. So much for thinking-out-loud.
Maybe the core concept is 'account', which suggests an account holder
and a service provider, and hints at the ability to show (openid
connect etc.) that you're the account holder. Dropping the word
'social' (which was discussed here a while back) does remove some of
the fuzzyness.
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<span itemprop="name">Stephen Fry</span>
(<a itemprop="url" href="http://www.stephenfry.com/">stephenfry.com</a>,
<a itemprop="account" href="http://twitter.com/stephenfry">twitter</a>,
<a itemprop="sameAs"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry">wikipedia</a>)
</div>
?
Dan
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 15:46:27 UTC