- From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:02:54 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'Dan Scott' <dan@coffeecode.net>, 'Vicki Tardif Holland' <vtardif@google.com>
- Cc: 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@google.com>, "'Jason Johnson (BING)'" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, 'Gregg Kellogg' <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, 'SchemaDot Org' <public-vocabs@w3.org>
13.10.2014, 18:43, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>: > On Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:46 PM, Dan Scott wrote: >> šOn Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote: >>> šOn Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >>>>> šIf you really want to go down this route, though, I would suggest roleName >>>>> šdirectly on Role that could serve for any future subtypes as well. >>>>> šOtherwise, properties like characterName and namedPosition are just going to >>>>> špropagate as more Role subtypes emerge for different contexts. >>>> šroleName on Role (expecting Text or URL) works for me, >>> šPromoting "namedPosition" to Role and renaming the property "roleName" >>> šor the like soungs good to me. >> šThanks for the positive response, Vicki! I've opened >> šhttps://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/146 in the hopes of making >> šthis (or the like) happen. > > Maybe I missed something but why don't we simply use "name" with "Role" to give a role a name? Is name used for something else with roles? Hmm. Do we expect to do anything useful by looking at the domain of "name"? Or by realising that a namedRole has a special domain? (I think I heard requests for that at DCMI conference last week, but I am not sure how important it is as a use case). cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 17:03:28 UTC