Re: Argumentation Schema

Hi All,

Sorry for the interruption, *also sorry if you get this email twice*. I
thought this will be a very easy task for you. Could you please just send
me a Schema example for my https://a2electronics.com online store.


Regards,

Md. Arifur Rahman / Graphic Designer & SEO
design@tanur.graphics / +8801834892448

Tanur Graphics
www.tanur.graphics

[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/tunaaman> [image: Twitter]
<http://twitter.com/tuna_m> [image: Google Plus]
<https://plus.google.com/+ArifurRahmanTanu> [image: Youtube]
<https://www.youtube.com/tunaman7787> [image: Linkedin]
<http://tanur.graphics/bd.linkedin.com/in/tunaman> [image: Dribbble]
<https://dribbble.com/tuna_m> [image: pinterest]
<https://www.pinterest.com/tunaman7787/> [image: skype]
<https://htmlsig.com/skype?username=tunaman7787>

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Arifur Rahman <tanu@abac-bd.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Sorry for the interruption. I thought this is may be a very easy task for
> you. Could you please just send me a Schema example for my
> https://a2electronics.com online store.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Md. Arifur Rahman / Team Lead  (SEO)  & Graphic Designer
>
> *ABAC Technologies Ltd. <http://abac-bd.com/>* / +8801834892448
> <01834-892448>
>
> *www.abac-bd.com <http://www.abac-bd.com/>www.notunbazar.com
> <http://notunbazar.com/>*
>
> [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/tunaaman> [image: Twitter]
> <http://twitter.com/tuna_m> [image: Google Plus]
> <https://plus.google.com/+ArifurRahmanTanu> [image: Youtube]
> <https://www.youtube.com/tunaman7787> [image: Linkedin]
> <http://tanur.graphics/bd.linkedin.com/in/tunaman> [image: Dribbble]
> <https://dribbble.com/tuna_m> [image: pinterest]
> <https://www.pinterest.com/tunaman7787/> [image: skype]
> <https://htmlsig.com/skype?username=tunaman7787>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Richard Wallis <
> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> Thanks for the markup examples.  What I am having difficulty in ‘seeing’
>> is what a real world example would look like.
>>
>> If my understanding of the use case is correct I expected to see an
>> article, or extract from one, that was attributed to an author (plus other
>> metadata: date, URL, etc) plus supporting or dissenting statement(s)
>> referencing it, each with their own author, date, etc.  If my understanding
>> is also correct the supporting/desenting statements are very likely to be
>> published on different website(s) to the original article.
>>
>> As to microdata/RDFa/JSON-LD, in all cases the data structures encoded in
>> these formats would be identical, it is only how they would be encoded into
>> the html that would differ.  The choice of which serialisation to use would
>> be down to individual website developers.  This is why examples on [most]
>> Schema.org documentation pages are supplied in all three formats.
>>
>> ~Richard.
>>
>>
>> Richard Wallis
>> Founder, Data Liberate
>> http://dataliberate.com
>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>> Twitter: @rjw
>>
>> On 16 January 2017 at 21:05, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I put some rough draft examples up at:
>>>
>>> *https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/*
>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>
>>>
>>> My thoughts on the discussion question were that more intricate
>>> structures could be in JSON-LD <script> elements. With microdata/RDFa, the
>>> structures go atop the markup, atop the natural language; elements are
>>> utilized once in microdata/RDFa.
>>>
>>> *From:* Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
>>> *Sent:* ‎Monday‎, ‎January‎ ‎16‎, ‎2017 ‎11‎:‎48‎ ‎AM
>>> *To:* Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* public-schemaorg@w3.org, public-argumentation@w3.org
>>>
>>> I am finding it difficult to see how these options would work without
>>> having some marked up example use cases to look at.
>>>
>>> I am also a little confused by the discussion question about which
>>> microdata/RDFa and JSON-LD scenarios we should be looking at.   In
>>> Schema.org (in the vast majority of cases) the encoding syntax should not
>>> be relevant - the vocabulary should work the same for all three syntaxes.
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>>
>>> Richard Wallis
>>> Founder, Data Liberate
>>> http://dataliberate.com
>>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>>> Twitter: @rjw
>>>
>>> On 16 January 2017 at 16:33, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Schema.org Community Group,
>>>> Argumentation Community Group,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your feedback and comments so far. I’ve refactored the
>>>> schemas.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/
>>>>
>>>> I’m exploring two approaches to modeling argument maps. A first
>>>> approach is to model the relationships between statements or quotations.
>>>>
>>>> *Relationship* — Extends *Intangible* <https://schema.org/Intangible>.
>>>> A relationship between a subject and an object.
>>>> subject: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *Quotation*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *Relationship*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList> or URI
>>>> object: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *Quotation*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *Relationship*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList> or URI
>>>>
>>>> A second approach is to model statements which extend CreativeWork and
>>>> which can be interrelated.
>>>>
>>>> *Statement* — Extends *CreativeWork* <http://schema.org/CreativeWork>.
>>>> A statement.
>>>> supports: *Statement*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>>>> supportedBy: *Statement*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>>>> opposes: *Statement*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>>>> opposedby: *Statement*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>>>>
>>>> I’ll explore how the approaches work in Microdata, RDFa and JSON-LD.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of approach 1 or 2, a topic of argumentation schemas is to
>>>> convenience the expression of agreement and disagreement and to support the
>>>> expression of rationale for so doing.
>>>>
>>>> *AgreeQuotation* — Extends *Quotation*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>. A quotation
>>>> which is agreed with.
>>>> rationale: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>>>>
>>>> *DisagreeQuotation* — Extends *Quotation*
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>. A quotation
>>>> which is disagreed with.
>>>> rationale: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *ItemList*
>>>> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Adam Sobieski
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>