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

Re: Socialnetworks of a person or organization

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 17:27:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaPscHaMKYUQYRYzW6Lt-D=SFoNWXVwMJVMcc-XOXrJGzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Kingsley,

Your not helping solve the problem we have at this moment.

This is the problem that we are trying to solve.  We have a property for
describing a Thing's alternative identity online.  For that we use
"sameAs", everyone knows that.  Stop this madness.

And your probably misunderstanding the problem.  Let me try it this way...

You are assigned a task to teach a computer which of the following URI's
you can use to communicate with an entity, However, there are rules you
must abide by, which are that you can only use 1 Schema.org Type and only 1
Property from that Type:

A: http://www.freebase.com/user/thadguidry

and

B: https://plus.google.com/+ThadGuidry

where A does not allow communication with me...and B does allow
communication with me.

The computer must know from a Schema.org property assignment of your choice
that B allows for communication with me.

Which Schema.org Type and Property would you use for B and describe why
your answer would make simple sense to most Web Developers.




On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 4/12/14 7:15 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>
>> CHOICE A:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
>> <span itemprop="name">Thad Guidry</span>
>>     (<a itemprop="url" href="https://www.freebase.com/m/07dkfwx#this">Thad
>> Guidry's topic on Freebase</a>,
>>      <a itemprop="webid" href="http://twitter.com/thadguidry#this">Thad
>> Guidry's twitter account</a>,
>> <a itemprop="webid"
>> href="http://www.freebase.com/user/thadguidry#this">Thad Guidry's user
>> account on Freebase</a>,
>> <a itemprop="webid"
>> href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry#this">Thad Guidry's user
>> account on LinkedIn</a>)
>> </div>
>>
>> CHOICE B:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
>> <span itemprop="name">Thad Guidry</span>
>>     (<a itemprop="sameAs" href="https://www.freebase.com/m/07dkfwx">Thad
>> Guidry's topic on Freebase</a>,
>>      <a itemprop="socialAccount" href="http://twitter.com/thadguidry">Thad
>> Guidry's twitter account</a>,
>> <a itemprop="account"
>> href="http://www.freebase.com/user/thadguidry">Thad Guidry's user
>> account on Freebase</a>,
>> <a itemprop="sameAs"
>> href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry#this">Thad Guidry's profile
>> on LinkedIn</a>)
>> </div>
>>
>>
>> I would pick B every time.
>>
>> At this point, I see no additional gain for the Stakeholders, Web
>> Developers, Apps, or me.
>>
>> #this feels....burdensome and adds an additional layer that is actually
>> outside the Schema.org property's understanding.  And besides, Fragments
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier like what your trying
>> to reuse, are nice and cool, and those depend on a client to process
>> them...however they wish....a server does nothing with fragments, last time
>> I checked the RFC's.
>>
>> Willing to look at it through your eyes Kingsley, but your going to have
>> to give us examples that show the benefit that your pitching...even live
>> working examples with some App or Webpage out there that understands your
>> ideas and can build relations with them.  Schema.org has to meet the needs
>> of the plenty...not of the few.
>>
>> Proof in the pudding big guy ?
>>
>
> CHOICE A:
>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
> <span itemprop="name">Thad Guidry</span>
>     (<a itemprop="url" href="https://www.freebase.com/m/07dkfwx#this">Thad
> Guidry's topic on Freebase</a>,
>      <a itemprop="webid" href="http://twitter.com/thadguidry#this">Thad
> Guidry's twitter account</a>,
> <a itemprop="webid"
> href="http://www.freebase.com/user/thadguidry#this">Thad Guidry's user
> account on Freebase</a>,
> <a itemprop="webid"
> href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry#this">Thad Guidry's user
> account on LinkedIn</a>)
> </div>
>
>
> Turtle Translation:
>
>
> <>
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/md#item> [
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <
> http://schema.org/Person> ;
>                                <http://schema.org/name> "Thad Guidry";
>                                <http://schema.org/url> <
> https://www.freebase.com/m/07dkfwx#this>;
>                                <http://schema.org/webid> <
> http://twitter.com/thadguidry#this>,
> <http://www.freebase.com/user/thadguidry#this>,
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry#this>
>                               ] ;
>
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#usesVocabulary> <http://schema.org/> .
>
> CHOICE B:
>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
> <span itemprop="name">Thad Guidry</span>
>     (<a itemprop="sameAs" href="https://www.freebase.com/m/07dkfwx">Thad
> Guidry's topic on Freebase</a>,
>      <a itemprop="socialAccount" href="http://twitter.com/thadguidry">Thad
> Guidry's twitter account</a>,
> <a itemprop="account"
> href="http://www.freebase.com/user/thadguidry">Thad Guidry's user account
> on Freebase</a>,
> <a itemprop="sameAs"
> href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry#this">Thad Guidry's profile
> on LinkedIn</a>)
> </div>
>
> Turtle Translation:
>
>
> <>
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/md#item> [
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <
> http://schema.org/Person> ;
>                                   <http://schema.org/account> <
> http://www.freebase.com/user/thadguidry>;
>                                   <http://schema.org/name> "Thad Guidry";
>                                   <http://schema.org/sameAs> <
> https://www.freebase.com/m/07dkfwx>,
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry#this>;
> <http://schema.org/socialAccount> <http://twitter.com/thadguidry>
>                               ] ;
>
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#usesVocabulary> <http://schema.org/> .
>
>
> Comments:
>
> The only issue with either suggestion you are making is "sameAs" since
> most will not pick up on the subtleties in your example. Basically, your
> "sameAs" relation doesn't conflate entity types. You even use the fragment
> identifier to disambiguate the LinkedIn profile page (one entity) and the
> entity it describes (i.e., entity "you" ). Others, based on the target
> audience of Schema.org will not. If you use "webid" instead of "sameAs" you
> will be able to describe the "webid" relationship property in simple terms
> without confusion. If you use "sameAs" even describing the property will be
> problematic, try describing it to see what I mean.
>
>
> At this juncture, my only concern is about the use of "sameAs" which can't
> escape the "equivalence connotation" . Crafting a paragraph that describes
> a "sameAs" relationship property  versus doing the same in regards to a
> "webid" relationship property is basically all the proof you need :-)
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Sunday, 13 April 2014 22:28:14 UTC

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