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

Re: ItemList

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 23:02:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jeAY1docsmV2352=SbRqTrKO8JaoYqY5POfj=s5nY206A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Cc: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Order in many cases can be seen as a matter of presentation, and not
intrinsic to a collection. For instance, an ordered presentation of a
publication collection would be (best) based on algorithmic sorting, using
properties of the respective members (such as publication date if you wish
to present a timeline, and e.g. issue number, publisher or author name,
title and so forth).

Thus there is no need to represent that as an ItemList. (On the contrary,
really, since users may want to generate different orders, ascending or
descending, etc.)

(See also RDF lists, available through @inlist in RDFa, or @list in
JSON-LD. These should be judiciously used, when the order is intrinsic and
meaningful in itself.)

Cheers,
Niklas


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Jarno van Driel
<jarnovandriel@gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
>
> If nobody sees any trouble with it I'll mute myself than. I was just
> thinking out loud.   :)
>
>
> 2014-05-13 22:31 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:
>
> +1
>>
>> Let's not mix a mechanism for preserving ordered list with one for basic
>> notions of meronomy (part-whole relationships). A list of parts can be
>> ordered or unordered. An ordered list can reflect part-whole relationships
>> or not. These are different perspectives.
>> Of course, depending on the notion of parthood, elements in a list are
>> parts of the list (or not), but this is not the important aspect here.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 May 2014, at 22:25, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Jarno van Driel <
>> jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Got it, thanks. And I can live with that just fine.
>> >
>> > Now I also was just looking at the periodicals proposal (
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works)
>> and wondered if there's any danger of ItemList having some overlap with the
>> proposed @hasPart property. @hasPart's description in that proposal says:
>> "A related CreativeWork that is included either logically or physically in
>> this CreativeWork; for example, things in a collection, parts in a
>> multi-part work, or articles in a periodical or publication issue."
>> >
>> > Now I could be wrong here but "things in a collection, parts in a
>> multi-part work" both could be expressed with the properties of ItemList as
>> well. So I don't know if that should be investigated further as well.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jarno, you could express them that way...BUT we need to keep them
>> separate since they handle 2 different kinds of uses...ItemList
>> (editorialized list of things) and hasPart (things being a part of
>> something, like a collection)   In other words...An ITEM IN A LIST does not
>> equal An ITEM IN A COLLECTION.  2 different Types.
>> >
>> > --
>> > -Thad
>> > +ThadGuidry
>> > Thad on LinkedIn
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 21:03:04 UTC

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