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

RE: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

From: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:01:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEiKvUBqU3y=HyLAXoqNUjJyNweMo8jAV-_1qxMomiyOOLhtmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, public-hydra@w3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
That presumes that there is an official schema.org answer.  However, there
have not been use cases to date among the partners that have required
addressability, pagination, etc. for collections, so frankly it hasn't been
discussed much.

This thread has gone in so many directions, I can't tell whether there's
any specific proposal being made for schema.org.  Is there?

On Mon Mar 31 2014 at 11:49:49 AM, Markus Lanthaler <
markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:35 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Jason Douglas wrote:
> > > [Aside] I appreciate re-using an existing Class, but I think ItemList
> > > was intended for a different use case than collections (I've given the
> > > same feedback to Sam).  It's a subclass of CreativeWork because it's
> > > for "editorialized" lists (top 10 list, playlists, etc.). I think we
> > > need something new like an actual Collection class in schema.org
> > >
> > > I think a Collection class would be great; it should also allow for
> > > pagination. This could be done in the scope of this proposal where
> > > specific guidance is given on how to separate entity definitions into
> > > collections, so that large numbers of relationships can be effectively
> > > managed.
> >
> > Just on the record, I understand how ItemList is a hack (because it
> > extends CreativeWork), I don't personally mind a brand new Collection
> > class.
>
> Yeah, it is a hack, and probably a pretty bad one as it doesn't even
> preserve the order of the things in that list, at least not in RDFa and
> JSON-LD.
>
> Anyway, the question is still how such an indirection is intended to be
> used in schema.org. That was the reason why I cc'ed public-vocabs in the
> first place but I still haven't got any answer to that question. Will all
> properties that allow multiple values be changed to include Collection or
> ItemList in their rangeIncludes? Should this just implicitly be assumed to
> be the case? Or are they not intended to be used in such a way at all?
>
> It would be really helpful if answers to these questions could be given by
> the schema.org sponsors.
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 19:01:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:38 UTC