Re: [Proposal] schema:NotApplicable

On 09/20/2014 03:39 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Q: What's worse than having a http://schema.org/faxNumber property
> applicable to http://schema.org/Volcano?
> A: Having every Volcano description include { "faxNumber": "NotApplicable" }
> 
> Do you have particular scenarios in mind where this would be needed,
> e.g. around nationality/tax/vat?
IMO just having such expressive capacity doesn't have to lead to its
abuse. To give another real world example

{
  "@context": "http://schema.org"
  "@type": "Person",
  "@id": "http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en.html",
  "name": "Franciscus Jorge Mario Bergoglio",
  "jobTitle": "Pope",
  "spouse" : "NotApplicable"
}

While an edge case, I see such knowledge less obvious comparing to
'Volcanos have no faxNumbers'.

Myself I choose to live #stateless without going through bureaucratic,
procedures to formalize it. I know quite few people who also live
stateless and many more who seriously consider making such step. I also
know at least one person who went through the hassle of geting certified
stateless status  http://www.nostate.com/1359/im-officially-stateless/

Currently I don't see clear way of publishing such information in
documents describing us. I must agree as for today people can consider
#stateless community a rather small minority.

I see value in general in having possibility to mark some properties as
NotApplicable. If I just omit them, system consuming them and needing
such information, could put me on a *Request additional information*
list. While if I clearly state N/A I have bigger chance to end up on
*Outside of our target audience* list. So for example dating services
would not spam the Pope with offers, without needing to make him an
exceptional case.

Once again, if term NotApplicable sounds confusing, maybe some other
mechanism could serve same purpose?

Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 14:29:31 UTC