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

Re: itemprop="translator"

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:03:41 -0700
Message-ID: <5405F86D.3000709@kcoyle.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
CC: Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>


On 9/2/14, 8:20 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Glancing throughhttp://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relacode.html
> there's a lot in there. Are there any super-useful things we're
> missing that could be argued for inclusion as first class properties?


Rather than guessing at this, is there any data we can consult? 
Unfortunately, libraries haven't applied the relators uniformly, but it 
may be possible to get some stats. I would also think that the search 
engines have some concept of which search terms lead to the selection of 
items.

That was my point about illustrator vs. translator - while in libraries 
we tend to record what we know about something, with little regard to 
whether our users care, I assume that online stores and search engines 
have a better idea of what makes for a successful search. If my 
assumption is correct that use of schema.org is aimed at searching and 
linking, then we should optimize for searching and linking. If, instead, 
schema.org is intended to mark up every possible fact or aspect that can 
appear on a web page, then I can't see how we can make rational 
decisions about what to include and what to exclude.

I admit that "convenience for the programmer" has validity, and if 
adding the occasional bit of cruft makes it easier, that's fine. But I 
would suggest finding some clarity on how to set bounds on a finite 
schema.org universe. Decisions are random without criteria. Like Martin 
Hepp has often said, schema.org has crept up from a few useful bits of 
markup to something that seems about to crumble under its own weight. 
Where are we going with this? (Oh, I know that's a question that DanBri 
just LOVES to hear ;-))

All that to say that I would exercise great caution in adding new roles 
because, as I said before, there are more points of view than any of us 
can imagine. Dan Scott illustrated some with IMDB.

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 17:04:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:44 UTC