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

Re: When to use UserComments rather than Comment class?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:33:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6t5PTk1KgF6DgEYWTAVzdmqY3QFna8RvWkZc4F=muxzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Gooding <george@nettsentrisk.no>
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 17 March 2014 11:28, George Gooding <george@nettsentrisk.no> wrote:
> I tried to get peoples' attention about this issue quite a while ago:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/0113.html
>
> This part of schema.org is still broken. There is no valid way of marking up
> comments to a blog post or article as of right now.

The draft of our next release that I circulated last week
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Mar/0036.html
addresses this as part of the changes to introduce a Question/Answer
schema: See http://sdopending.appspot.com/comment ... so please just
assume a 'comment' property can point to Comment now. These changes
should be live in a matter of days.

We are also working on improvements to the site that will make it
clearer which old vocabulary is deprecated.

Dan


>
> 2014-02-27 11:37 GMT+01:00 Martin Kadlec <me@martinkadlec.eu>:
>>
>> If http://schema.org/Comment should be used in general then shouldn't
>> the expected type of Article#comment be Comment rather than
>> UserComments?
>>
>> (Sorry for dupe message Matthias)
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-27 11:30 GMT+01:00 Martin Kadlec <harou2@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> If http://schema.org/Comment should be used in general then shouldn't
>>> the expected type of Article#comment be Comment rather than
>>> UserComments?
>>>
>>> 2014-02-27 10:09 GMT+01:00, Matthias Tylkowski <matthias@binarypark.org>:
>>>
>>> > Hello Martin,
>>> > http://schema.org/UserComments is derived from
>>> > http://schema.org/UserInteraction and describes the action to perform a
>>> > comment.
>>> >
>>> > http://schema.org/Comment describes the comment itself. There are many
>>> > overlapping properties here. I suggest to use http://schema.org/Comment
>>> > in general. As you propably want to markup the comments on your
>>> > website.
>>> > I think Comment is newer than UserComments and has propably not been
>>> > incorporated into Article yet.
>>> >
>>> > http://schema.org/UserComments is used maybe by analytics tools to
>>> > collect data when the user creates a comment.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > Matthias Tylkowski
>>> >
>>> > Technischer Leiter
>>> > Binarypark UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
>>> > Erich-Weinert-Str. 1
>>> > 03046 Cottbus
>>> > Tel +49 (0)355 692931
>>> > Fax +49 (0)355 694171
>>> > info@binarypark.org
>>> > http://binarypark.org
>>> >
>>> > Am 26.02.2014 18:35, schrieb Martin Kadlec:
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >> I'm looking into comments&microdata. I read the whole UserComments vs
>>> >> Comment discussion from 2012. It is said there that
>>> >> http://schema.org/Comment encodes the creative work by someone while
>>> >> http://schema.org/UserComments encodes the action event of doing a
>>> >> comment. Can anyone give me a real world example of when I would want
>>> >> to use UserComments rather than Comment? Also the Article#comment
>>> >> property (according to schema.org <http://schema.org>) refers to
>>>
>>> >> UserComments rather than Comment which seems weird. Can I just
>>> >> specifythe itemtype as Comment and use CreativeWork(/Comment)
>>> >> itemprops instead?
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> Martin
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 11:33:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:37 UTC