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

Re: Better description for 'keywords' property

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:45:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnFAO_vPfo2CDNDgkNxcM5gnwgHvkAtfndhj=B2PE-BLOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net
> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:00 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:17:12PM +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > >On 17 May 2014 06:31, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> From previous conversations on this list, it looks like
> > >> http://schema.org/keywords is meant to hold a list of comma-separated
> > >> keywords, like the RDFa on this page:
> > >> http://arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item/286:
> > >>
> > >> <span property="keywords">john burke, msc, football, team</span>
> > >>
> > >> If this is correct, the description for this property, which currently
> reads
> > >> "The keywords/tags used to describe this content", could be a bit more
> > >> detailled. I suggest:
> > >>
> > >> A comma-separated list of keywords/tags used to describe this content.
> > >
> > >This sounds reasonable to me. The only objections I can think of
> > >involve trying to stretch this property too far, e.g. phrases that
> > >contain commas within them. Let's keep it simple...
> > >
> > >Does anyone here think that this change would not be an improvement?
>
> I was just wondering why there doesn't exist a singular version of
> "keywords", i.e., "keyword". Was that somehow forgotten when all plurals
> were deprecated or was this a deliberate decision?
>

I had the same reaction as you at first when I discovered this, but
'keywords' was kept plural for that very reason, because it's one string
containing a list of comma-separated keywords. I was surprised initially
but apparently there are system/folks who prefer to use that as a opposed
to breaking down the list into individual properties.

Steph.


>
> I think this matters because...
>
> > there are currently hundreds and, as sites upgrade, will be thousands
> > of library Web sites that express "keywords" like:
> >
> > * keywords: Linux.
> > * keywords: Internet programming.
> > * keywords: Web sites > Design.
> > * keywords: Electronic mail systems > Security measures.
> >
> > This is because we augment the existing display of subject headings like
> > so:
> >
> > <div property="keywords">
> >   <a href="search?email">Electronic mail systems</a> &gt;
> >   <a href="search?email+security">Security measures.</a>
> > </div>
>
> could also be expressed as
>
>   <span property="keyword"><a href="search?email">Electronic mail
> systems</a></span> &gt;
>   <span property="keyword"><a href="search?email+security">Security
> measures</a></span>.
>
> which would have the advantage that the keywords are already tokenized by
> the publisher instead of forcing the consumer to do so... which would,
> btw.,
> also address Stéphane's concern below
>
> > >This sounds reasonable to me. The only objections I can think of
> > >involve trying to stretch this property too far, e.g. phrases that
> > >contain commas within them. Let's keep it simple...
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>


-- 
Steph.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 14:45:39 UTC

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