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

Re: schema.org as it could be

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:00:07 -0800
Message-ID: <52CC4EB7.50604@gmail.com>
To: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, public-vocabs@w3.org, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>

On 01/07/2014 08:56 AM, Wes Turner wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2014 10:43 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com 
> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't aware that anything I sent out here was "from a DL perspective". 
>  I freely admit that I was working towards a formal perspective, but I don't 
> see anything wrong with that, and furthermore the account I've sent out so 
> far is only pre-theoretic.
> >> Bare text can be used as if it was the value for any property.
> Where schema says the range is http://schema.org/URL or 
> http://schema.org/Organization (as with http://schema.org/branchOf), should 
> we need to determine whether a textual string is a URI or a URL?
> I ask because the DL literature did not manifest in a vacuum, and because my 
> RDF library has Literals and URI References.
Well the range of branchOf is just Organization, as far as I can see, so I 
don't think that the question arises here.   My proposal would make the bare 
text be a description of the organization. Extra-logical processing would have 
to make the determination of just what that bare text was, and what extra to 
do, if anything.

For a range of URL, then, yes, there would need to be a determination if the 
bare text was a URL or not.  If so, then it would be considered to be a URL.

Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 19:00:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:36 UTC