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

Re: [Proposal] schema:NotApplicable

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:39:21 -0700
Message-ID: <541EF129.7030104@gmail.com>
To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Proposals like this always remind me of Little Bobby Tables.  http://xkcd.com/327/

peter

On 09/20/2014 07:27 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> 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 Sunday, 21 September 2014 15:39:50 UTC

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