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

Finalizing Schema.org "Roles" design

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 17:58:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4sGkO_4NZFgNXaCL4ZnRMbHtxFmTth-2cTm__1qzyxcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I've just updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/RolesPattern with
a link to a 'final draft' PDF of the schema.org "Roles" design. The
main examples are also lifted into the Wiki page and copied below;
there's also a link to the original google doc url, for those who
prefer to comment that way.


For a motivating example, when we say that a Person was anactor in a
Movie, we might want to mention their characterName too. When we say
that a SportsTeam has a Person as an athlete, we might want to mention
the position that they play, or the time period in which they
fulfilled that role.

The basic approach should be clear from the examples. It is similar to
classic W3C RDF "reification", in that it takes a
property/relationship and treats that as a thing (a "Role", in our
terminology) that can be further described and annotated.

Here is an example sports-related description:

{
    "@context": "http://schema.org/",
     "@type": "AmericanFootballRole",
     "roleSubject": {
            "@type": "AmericanFootballTeam",
            "name": "San Francisco 49ers"
     },
     "roleProperty": {
         "http://schema.org/athlete"
    },
    "roleObject": {
        "@type": "Person",
        "name": "Joe Montana"
    },
    "startDate": "1979",
    "endDate": "1992",
    "position": "Quarterback"
}

Here is a movie:

{
    "@context": "http://schema.org/",
     "@type": "MovieRole",
     "roleSubject": {
            "@type": "Movie",
            "name": "GhostBusters"
     },
     "roleProperty": {
         "http://schema.org/actor"
    },
    "roleObject": {
        "@type": "Person",
        "name": "Bill Murray"
    },
    "characterName": "Dr. Peter Venkman"
}


This approach differs from the original draft (circulated at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Mar/0111.html),
based on feedback and discussion here on the earlier approach. This
time we think we're done, but as always welcome comments and alternate
perspectives.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2014 16:59:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 May 2014 16:59:32 UTC