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

Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for Schema.org

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 21:22:33 +0200
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, "kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk" <kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk>, Jay Myers <jay.myers@bestbuy.com>, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Message-Id: <185F0D64-26FA-4AA9-B0C5-E2BD2FD16EDB@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Dear all:
Apologies for the slight delay in addressing of your recent comments. 

I will now adressing them sequentially and then write a separate, longer wrap-up email that summarizes the state of the discussion.


Martin



On 02 May 2014, at 20:27, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> On May 2, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2 May 2014 18:38, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote:
>>> Fine, but I think there's an aspect of that mechanism that would be a shame
>>> to drop, which is that it had some semantic scoping.
>>> 
>>> I think it's a bad idea to have a completely generic bailout mechanism like
>>> this.  However, I have no issue with more localized bailouts for things like
>>> product specifications or sports statistics that do have common
>>> characteristics but a lot of variety and uniqueness.  You at least have some
>>> hope of being able to do something useful with that data.  Otherwise,
>>> there's little value over a bag of words.
>> 
>> Yeah, I share the concern about having unscoped bundles of fields that
>> could mean anything.
>> 
>> I'm not a believe in the slash-based extension, at least in this case.
>> It's best used for super-properties, i.e. where the extended form
>> implies the short form:
>> 
>> Does
>> {
>> @type: Product,
>> productSpecification/screenSize : {
>>   value: 46
>>   unitCode: "CMT"
>> }
>> }
>> 
>> imply
>> 
>> { @type: Product,  productSpecification: "46"} ?
>> 
>> This would seem like an overstretch. 46 could be the number of
>> previous owners, without the qualifying info.  Whereas
>> http://schema.org/actor/lead would 'dumb down' nicely to plain old
>> '/actor'.
>> 
>> For the kind of product data Martin's talking about here, I wonder
>> whether it might be more fruitful to use something like a CSV tabular
>> form, associated as a http://schema.org/Dataset and use annotations on
>> the table structure, along lines we're spec'ing in the W3C CSV on the
>> Web group - http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-csvw-ucr-20140327/
>> https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Main_Page
> 
> +1, although that still begs the question of what the property space is.
> 
> Gregg
> 
>> Dan
>> 
> 
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 19:23:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC