- From: Peter Krauss <ppkrauss@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:48:26 -0300
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Guha <guha@google.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHEREtujJ1RKEf-jq075oD5q2qPwr2CDxUpMkN+GwFU1Bs0TUQ@mail.gmail.com>
I am new at schema.org... My "fresh perception" is that schema.org do not
have *methodological clarity*.
This initial perception now is confirmed with this Melvin's suggestion. It
seems a good suggestion, but I think that, perhaps, the first step is to
put some transparency (sorry if I not see, please show it) in the schema.org
site.
Examples:
* is there a "*curator body*" a in this community? Who decides whether a
new vocabulary will be adicoinado?
* is there some "*permanent commitment*" with the added external
vocabularies? (ex. "on update cascating" new vocabulary versions)
* the inclusion of external vocabularies use some methodological approach?
There are some (automated) documentation about each external fragment
included, such as using the OWL2 operators
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/>?
* are there a formal democratic schema to vote proposals? (ex. voting to
change a property name as suggested here
<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/350>)
* ...
Krauss
2015-02-22 10:05 GMT-03:00 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On 13 February 2015 at 22:34, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Schema.org extension mechanism
>>
>>
>>
>> Motivation
>>
>> As schema.org adoption has grown, a number groups with more
>> specialized vocabularies have expressed interest in extending schema.org
>> with their terms. The most prominent example of this is GS1 with product
>> vocabularies. Other examples include real estate, medical and bibliographic
>> information. Even in something as common as human names, there are groups
>> interested creating the vocabulary for representing all the intricacies of
>> names.
>>
>> Outline of solution
>>
>> There are two kinds of extensions: reviewed extensions and external
>> extensions. Both kinds of extensions typically add subclasses and
>> properties to the core. Properties may be added to existing and/or new
>> classes. More generally, they are an overlay on top of the core, and so
>> they may add domains/ranges, superclasses, etc. as well. Extensions have to
>> be consistent with the core schema.org. Every item in the core (i.e.,
>> www.schema.org) is also in every extension. Extensions might overlap
>> with each other in concepts (e.g., two extensions defining terms for
>> financial institutions, one calling it FinancialBank and other calling it
>> FinancialInstitution), but we should not have the same term being reused to
>> mean something completely different (e.g., we should not have two
>> extensions, one using Bank to mean river bank and the other using Bank to
>> mean financial institution).
>>
>> Reviewed Extensions
>>
>> Each reviewed extension (say, e1), gets its own chunk of schema.org
>> namespace: e1.schema.org. The items in that extension are created and
>> maintained by the creators of that extension. Reviewed extensions are very
>> different from proposals. A proposal, if accepted, with modifications could
>> either go into the core or become a reviewed extension.
>>
>> A reviewed extension is something that has been looked at and discussed
>> by the community, albeit not as much as something in the core. We also
>> expect a reviewed extension to have strong community support, preferably in
>> the form of a few deployments.
>>
>> External Extensions
>>
>> Sometimes there might be a need for a third party (such as an app
>> developer) to create extensions specific to their application. For example,
>> Pinterest might want to extend the schema.org concept of ‘Sharing’ with
>> ‘Pinning’. In such a case, they can create schema.pinterest.com and put
>> up their extensions, specifying how it links with core schema.org. We
>> will refer to these as external extensions.
>>
>>
>>
>> How it works for webmasters
>>
>> All of Schema.org core and all of the reviewed extensions will be
>> available from the schema.org website. Each extension will be linked to
>> from each of the touch points it has with the core. So, if an extension
>> (say, having to do with Legal stuff) creates legal.schema.org/LegalPerson
>> which is a subclass of schema.org/Person, the Person will link to
>> LegalPerson. Typically, a webpage / email will use only a single extension
>> (e.g., legal), in which case, instead of ‘schema.org’ they say ‘
>> legal.schema.org’ and use all of the vocabulary in legal.schema.org and
>> schema.org.
>>
>> As appropriate, the main schema.org site will also link to relevant
>> external extensions. With external extensions, the use of multiple
>> namespaces is unavoidable.
>>
>> What does someone creating an extension need to do
>>
>> We would like extension creators to not have to worry about running a
>> website for their extension. Once the extension is approved, they simply
>> upload a file with their extension into a certain directory on github.
>> Changes are made through the same mechanism.
>>
>> Since the source code for schema.org is publicly available, we encourage
>> creators of external extensions to use the same application.
>>
>> Examples
>>
>> Archives example in RDFa
>>
>> This example uses a type that makes sense for archival and bibliographic
>> applications but which is not currently in the schema.org core:
>> Microform, defined as "Any form, either film or paper, containing
>> microreproductions of documents for transmission, storage, reading, and
>> printing. (Microfilm, microfiche, microcards, etc.)"
>>
>> The extension type is taken from http://bibliograph.net/Microform,
>> (which on this proposed model would move to bib.schema.org) which is a
>> version of the opensource schema.org codebases that overlays
>> bibliographic extras onto the core schema.org types. The example is
>> adapted from http://schema.org/workExample.
>>
>>
>> <div vocab="http://bib.schema.org/">
>>
>> <p typeof="Book" resource="http://www.freebase.com/m/0h35m">
>>
>> <em property="name">The Fellowship of the Rings</em> was written by
>>
>> <span property="author">J.R.R Tolkien</span> and was originally
>> published
>>
>> in the <span property="publisher" typeof="Organization">
>>
>> <span property="location">United Kingdom</span> by
>>
>> <span property="name">George Allen & Unwin</span>
>>
>> </span> in <time property="datePublished">1954</time>.
>>
>> The book has been republished many times, including editions by
>>
>> <span property="workExample" typeof="Book">
>>
>> <span property="publisher" typeof="Organization">
>>
>> <span property="name">HarperCollins</span>
>>
>> </span> in <time property="datePublished">1974</time>
>>
>> (ISBN: <span property="isbn">0007149212</span>)
>>
>> </span> and by
>>
>> <span property="workExample" typeof="Book Microform">
>>
>> <span property="publisher" typeof="Organization">
>>
>> <span property="name">Microfiche Press</span>
>>
>> </span> in <time property="datePublished">2016</time>
>>
>> (ISBN: <span property="isbn">12341234</span>).
>>
>> </span>
>>
>> </p>
>>
>> </div>
>>
>> Alternative RDFa:
>>
>> The example above puts all data into the extension namespace. Although
>> this can be mapped back into normal schema.org it puts more work onto
>> consumers. Here is how it would look using multiple vocabularies:
>>
>> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" prefix="bib: http://bib.schema.org/">
>>
>> <p typeof="Book" resource="http://www.freebase.com/m/0h35m">
>>
>> <em property="name">The Fellowship of the Rings</em> was written by
>>
>> <span property="author">J.R.R Tolkien</span> and was originally
>> published
>>
>> in the <span property="publisher" typeof="Organization">
>>
>> <span property="location">United Kingdom</span> by
>>
>> <span property="name">George Allen & Unwin</span>
>>
>> </span> in <time property="datePublished">1954</time>.
>>
>> The book has been republished many times, including editions by
>>
>> <span property="workExample" typeof="Book">
>>
>> <span property="publisher" typeof="Organization">
>>
>> <span property="name">HarperCollins</span>
>>
>> </span> in <time property="datePublished">1974</time>
>>
>> (ISBN: <span property="isbn">0007149212</span>)
>>
>> </span> and by
>>
>> <span property="workExample" typeof="Book bib:Microform">
>>
>> <span property="publisher" typeof="Organization">
>>
>> <span property="name">Microfiche Press</span>
>>
>> </span> in <time property="datePublished">2016</time>
>>
>> (ISBN: <span property="isbn">12341234</span>).
>>
>> </span>
>>
>> </p>
>>
>> </div>
>>
>> Here is that last approach written in JSON-LD (it works today, but would
>> be even more concise if the schema.org JSON-LD context file was updated
>> to declare the 'bib' extension):
>>
>> <script type="application/ld+json">
>>
>> {
>>
>> "@context": [ "http://schema.org/",
>>
>> { "bib": "http://bib.schema.org/" } ],
>>
>> "@id": "http://www.freebase.com/m/0h35m",
>>
>> "@type": "Book",
>>
>> "name": "The Fellowship of the Rings",
>>
>> "author": "J.R.R Tolkien",
>>
>> "publisher": {
>>
>> "@type": "Organization",
>>
>> },
>>
>> "location": "United Kingdom",
>>
>> "name": "George Allen & Unwin",
>>
>> },
>>
>> "datePublished": "1954",
>>
>> "workExample": {
>>
>> "@type": "Book",
>>
>> "name": "Harper Collins",
>>
>> "datePublished": "1974",
>>
>> "isbn": "0007149212"
>>
>> },
>>
>> "workExample": {
>>
>> "@type": ["Book", "bib:Microform"],
>>
>> "name": "Microfiche Press",
>>
>> "datePublished": "2016",
>>
>> "isbn": "12341234"
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> </script>
>>
>>
>> GS1 Example
>>
>> <script type="application/ld+json">
>>
>> {
>>
>> "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>>
>> "@vocab": "http://gs1.schema.org/",
>>
>> "@id": "http://id.manufacturer.com/gtin/05011476100885",
>>
>> "gtin13": "5011476100885",
>>
>> "@type": "TradeItem",
>>
>> "tradeItemDescription": "Deliciously crunchy Os, packed with 4 whole
>> grains. Say Yes to Cheerios",
>>
>> "healthClaimDescription": "8 Vitamins & Iron, Source of Calcium & High
>> in Fibre",
>>
>> "hasAllergenRelatedInformation": {
>>
>> "@type": "gs1:AllergenRelatedInformation",
>>
>> "allergenStatement": "May contain nut traces"
>>
>> },
>>
>> "hasIngredients": {
>>
>> "@type": "gs1:FoodAndBeverageIngredient",
>>
>> "hasIngredientDetail": [
>>
>> {
>>
>> "@type": "Ingredient",
>>
>> "ingredientseq": "1",
>>
>> "ingredientname": "Cereal Grains",
>>
>> "ingredientpercentage": "77.5"
>>
>> },
>>
>> {
>>
>> "@type": "Ingredient",
>>
>> "ingredientseq": "2",
>>
>> "ingredientname": "Whole Grain OATS",
>>
>> "ingredientpercentage": "38.0"
>>
>> }
>>
>> ]
>>
>> },
>>
>> "nutrientBasisQuantity": {
>>
>> "@type": "Measurement",
>>
>> "value": "100",
>>
>> "unit": "GRM"
>>
>> },
>>
>> "energyPerNutrientBasis": [
>>
>> {
>>
>> "@type": "Measurement",
>>
>> "value": "1615",
>>
>> "unit": "KJO"
>>
>> },
>>
>> {
>>
>> "@type": "Measurement",
>>
>> "value": "382",
>>
>> "unit": "E14"
>>
>> }
>>
>> ],
>>
>> "proteinPerNutrientBasis": {
>>
>> "@type": "Measurement",
>>
>> "value": "8.6",
>>
>> "unit": "GRM"
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> </script>
>>
>> This example shows a possible encoding of the GS1 schemas overlaid onto
>> schema.org. It uses JSON-LD syntax, which would support several
>> variations on this approach. It is based on examples from GS1's proposal
>> circulated to the schema.org community recently.
>>
>> (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Jan/0069.html).
>> Instead of writing
>>
>> "@context": "http://schema.org/", "@vocab": "http://gs1.schema.org/",
>> it would be possible to simply write "@context": "http://gs1.schema.org/".
>>
>>
>
>
> Thanks for going over this
>
> Could you way in on the legality of using extensions to schema.org before
> they are formally reviewed say:
>
> 1. In a local development environment
> 2. In a closed system with limited exposure to the outside world
> 3. Pre-emptively in a production setting
>
> Of course this would be bleeding edge stuff. I am interested in whether
> the feeling is "Do it at your own risk" or "This is nor permissible"
>
>
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2015 14:48:54 UTC