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

Re: Schema.org v1.6 release candidate: Roles, various fixes, site navigation improvements

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:48:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7303kY9gc4WCxjkJZ4-hzzUUCXt9ROOJk6M0OfZk216A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 18 Jun 2014 16:38, "Dan Scott" <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:51:20PM +0000, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>>>
>>> From my experience it is easier to get your head around/discuss
>>> examples in Turtle and then referring to the RDFa/JSON-LD/Microdata
>>> see how it would be then be implemented.
>>
>>
>> I’ve been thinking about suggesting an optional Turtle tab for a while -
so I am now.
>
>
> So let's remember the intended audience of schema.org: "a collection of
> schemas that webmasters can use to markup HTML pages in ways recognized
> by major search providers, and that can also be used for structured data
> interoperability" (from the home page).
>
> Any of us that want to convert the RDFa or microdata or JSON-LD to any
> other format certainly can; we have a plethora of tools (online and
> offline) at our disposal.
>
> The reason the examples show the plain text / unadorned HTML by default
> is to provide a gentle stepping stone for those webmasters to learn how
> to augment their HTML. And arguably that simplicity is one of the reasons
for schema.org's
> adoption: it is very friendly towards beginners.
>
> Using Turtle as a means of communicating extension proposals makes
> sense. I don't think layering more obscure markup examples onto the main
> schema.org site does.

+1

Dan

> For what it's worth, any time I'm looking for an example of a property
> or type in use, I just grep
> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/blob/master/data/examples.txt --
> however, for webmasters that's not going to be an easy option. Perhaps a
> worthwhile enhancement to the schema.org site to enable simpler lookup
> would be a "search by property or type" option?
>
>
>>
>> On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:44, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Jun 2014 at 15:26, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18 June 2014 14:15, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this include *real* licenses URIs like
>>>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like in the last example in http://schema.org/WebPage ? :)
>>>>
>>>> (I realise readers don't know what is in each example 'tab' until they
>>>> look... maybe we could improve that)
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the problem is, that it is very hard to "see" what data is in
the default's tab (without markup) blob of text. It's almost impossible to
skim it. I'm not sure whether schema.org wants to go down that route, but I
think even for people that have no idea about how JSON-LD works (or even
what it is), it is much easier to skim and understand. So perhaps that
easiest tweak would be to show the JSON-LD tab by default!?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Markus Lanthaler
>>> @markuslanthaler
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 15:48:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC