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

Re: [Proposal] schema:NotApplicable

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:10:26 +0200
Message-ID: <541DED42.5040006@wwelves.org>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 09/20/2014 10:25 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> This reminds me of a discussion that we had around the library data
> standard. We already had "not applicable" but then someone decided that
> we needed to add "no attempt to code" for those situations where it
> MIGHT have been applicable, but that the library in question wasn't
> going to bother even trying to give that information. I was the only one
> who argued that people who aren't even going to bother to try to give
> the information are also the ones least likely to correctly code that
> they aren't bothering to give the information.
> Mainly, I think that "not applicable" is pretty meaningless (not
> applicable why?) so if someone is stateless then it should be
> "nationality": "stateless"
Then someone else can put "nostate" or "nationless" etc. Enum could
address it but people already use N/A commonly on various occasions and
we don't need to add Enum values for each new case. What do I use in
such case for taxID and vatID to signal N/A ?

> And if someone purposely does not have a telephone number, it could be
> "telephone": "none"
Can we make it into schema:None ? If we use strings one can put for
example "telephone": "N/A" or "telephone": "not interested" etc.

> And if you don't want to spam the Pope with your dating service
> (although that could be because he has a wide choice of dates already),
> you could have:
> "datingStatus": "not interested"
This requires new property, I just wanted something more precise then
free text "spouse": "no, thank you"

> Because
> "spouse": "notApplicable"
> is incredibly vague. The person could be single, widowed, be secretly
> married, be in a culture where marriage does not confer "spouse-ness" or
> "spouse-ness" could simply be irrelevant to the context in question.
I agree that it doesn't clarify a lot but at least signals N/A, which
gives at least *some clue*.

BTW vcard:None, vcard:Other, vcard:Unknown exist as sub classes of
vcard:Gender schema:gender http://schema.org/gender could at least
recommend some external enumeration!

Thank you for all the feedback Karen, if no one else finds types like
schema:None and schema:NotApplicable useful, of course I will not argue
about it any more :)
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 21:12:41 UTC

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