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

Re: ItemList proposal

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:08:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=5v2OovzBbY43tOB_=5sFR1scKUg9JcqN2MgqUDU4Ab8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
On 8 September 2014 12:58, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> I think we discussed this back then in the initial ItemList thread on this list - and the motivation on why to have indirection in here is that ordering and sequence information are typically context-bound and not absolute properties of the underlying entities.

Yes - that's the point I was trying to make on saturday. Imagine I
write a page which has an itemlist for my "favourite cities for a
short summer vacation", and another for "favourite cities for a short
winter vacation". The same real world entity might be at position 3 in
one list, and position 7 in another. It is reasonable to expect
consuming code to reconcile those two descriptions of the same city
(e.g. via direct URI, or via identifying properties e.g. 'url',
'sameAs'). Which would mean that properties from both descriptions get
folded together, losing track of whether some city got a 7 for winter
and a 3 for summer or vice-versa.

 "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of
indirection"

Dan

> Martin
>
>
>
> On 06 Sep 2014, at 21:35, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6 Sep 2014 20:21, "Vicki Tardif Holland" <vtardif@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Any feedback on my proposal for ListItem only being used as a Multi-Type Entity and dropping the 'item' property on ListItem? (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Aug/0112.html)
>> >
>> >
>> > Forgive me; I knew there was something in this area I was missing.
>> >
>> > I like the idea. There are many places we should encourage using multiple types.
>>
>> I like multiple types. I believe in this case the indirection has value since the ListItem can carry ordering information without it being merged in with other different ordering properties being used with the same real world item. These issues were responsible for RSS1's awkward use of an rdf sequence structure BTW.
>>
>> That said I'm on mobile phone now So verifying the concern is tricky
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> The example I keep coming back to is I may have an Offer to sell a book, at which point, I may want to use both the Book type and the Product type on the same entity. Authors don't seem to use multiple types much, but I wonder if that is because we don't give them clear examples of how and when to do that.
>> >
>> > Perhaps this is a good time to force multiple types on the same entity.
>> >
>> > - Vicki
>> >
>> > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
>> >
>>
>
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 12:08:37 UTC

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