W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Socialnetworks of a person or organization

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:08:42 +0200
To: "Jason Douglas" <jasondouglas@google.com>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "David Deering" <david@touchpointdigital.net>, "W3C Web Schemas Task Force" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xd294sjiy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:46:00 +0200, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> 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?

IMHO yes, but

> I also control my homepage and various other pages that are not my
> socialAccount.

In what sense is your "homepage" not a social account, and is *that*
a difference we want to capture?

> 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.

Hmm. If you want to *identify* yourself with a page (your homepage), a
wikipedia entry, your twitter account, then you are schema:sameAs, no?

But if you want to say that you are the author of a page, such as an
article you wrote or something that you contribute to, you'd do
something different, analagous to performerIn, that isn't yet nicely
documented but is the inverse of the "author" property.

> So given Jason's point and this observation I'll back off from the
> proposal. So much for thinking-out-loud.

(I am still doing it here…)

> 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.

I don't think that is particularly core here, unless you're using the  
account as an ID. And then you probably really want something that says  
that explicitly (and to think 3 more times before we go there).

The identifying use case for social networks can be met by people with  
their own domain (no relevant service provider, no openID, …). It's just  
an "about" page. Foaf used seeAlso for this, as a hack that pointed to  
things which were worth crawling - maybe that wasn't such a bad idea.

> Dropping the word 'social' (which was discussed here a while back)
> does remove some of the fuzzyness.

Yes.

> <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>

Hmm. Food for thought.

cheers


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 07:09:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC