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

Re: Email Message Definition?

From: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:11:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMbipBuAcHkna2M1EH=8NsLzvCdeoHSiqnufdA99YCj7xMH6Zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Gmail Actions avail themselves of very basic EmailMessage properties,
mostly inherited from Thing. [1]

Isn't the ability to make basic statements about a specific type of object
an inherent benefit of having that object available in the vocabulary?

[1] https://developers.google.com/gmail/actions/reference/types/EmailMessage
 On May 16, 2014 5:40 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 05/16/2014 04:10 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> I think there's a difference of perspective here. For schema.org at
>> least, it is perfectly fine to have a named subtype to indicate that
>> some but not all CreativeWorks are EmailMessages, without requiring
>> there to be distinguishing machine-friendly attributes for the
>> subtype. So we're happy with it as-is currently. Is there some
>> specific application this this situation breaks?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
> Well, I don't see how the mere addition of a new subtype could break any
> reasonable application, so if this is the bar, then there is no problem.
>
> However, I do not believe that the current situation is very good here.
> If content providers are to use this new class effectively they will want
> to associate information with emails, and the properties from CreativeWork
> do not seem to be adequate.  For example, how is one to add to and cc
> information, and keep them straight?
>
> peter
>
>
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 01:11:38 UTC

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