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

Re: Email Message Definition?

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 21:04:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaNaL=x59F=nEJ1CiRSvdvWm9CMJqKEPhwHFtk26Z+TwZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Least we all forget,

Schema.org is about making wild unstructured or semi-structured data ... to
be "more structured".

I don't think an Email is unstructured or semi-structured, but instead
already highly structured.

The question I would pose is this:  Is it highly structured enough to
handle the applications that Kingsley or others in the future have in mind
outside of a regular "Reply" or "Send" or "Attach", etc.

Microsoft said "NO" to this over nearly 10 years ago and invented
extensions to email and it's clients (that we all use today, even within
Gmail itself) that ratified new Mime type discussions and Email Standards.
 Others are soon to begin breaking new ground in this territory as well..
http://www.email-standards.org/about/

2 cents,



On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 02:04:53 UTC

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