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

Re: VideoGame proposal

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:20:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-DBbQ_XNvdc1_gANLoYo2P3+3Q9Gg+B-tdEcXEW4sn7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Jeff Mixter <jeffmixter@gmail.com>, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
If there is a very wide usage of a particular external standard, then of
course, it makes sense for schema.org to refer to that standard. Note that
I say 'wide usage' not 'consensus' (among vocabulary creators).

The cost of bouncing webmasters between different namespaces is just too
high.

Guha


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:22 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Hi Aaraon:
>
> On 15 May 2014, at 21:24, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > While I understand the rationale behind using productontology.org URIs
> I come down squarely against relying upon them in any situation where the
> class and/or properties in question are likely to be widely used by a large
> number of webmasters.  I feel confident in saying that potential benefits
> of employing productontology.org URIs for something like the proposed
> platform property will ever remain potential because hardly anyone will
> employ it.  schema.org's better-than-anticipated success has been
> predicated not only because it's easy to employ, but on the fact that it's
> self-contained.  IMO, every time we punt to an external vocabulary we're
> shooting ourselves in the foot:  I can't stress this enough (and I welcome
> Martin Hepp's input on this, both because I know he's had something to say
> about this recently in the context of his generic property/value pair
> proposal and, of course, because of his experience with
> productontology.org).
> My point on mechanisms for externalizing or deferring consensus is as
> follows:
>
> 1. When there exists consensus in an external standard, it is better to
> refer to that standard than to incorporate it into schema.org - e.g.
> currency codes, GPC classes, most enumerations.
>
> 2. When site owners are not able to easily link their data to a more
> standardized representation, it is better to allow them publishing as much
> "lightweight" semantics as possible than making it too costly for them to
> publish any data.
>
> Video game is definitely a class that should be in schema.org, whereas
> for http://www.productontology.org/doc/Action_role-playing_game, I think
> an external mechanism is a better place.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 May 2014 16:21:05 UTC

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