> allowing and encouraging IDs on the schema.org/Claim type My impression, from the July F2F, was that IDs on claims was not going to be encouraged. So I'd be interested in exploring pros and cons. On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > Last we spoke, you thought the idea we're moving towards at schema.org, > allowing and encouraging IDs on the schema.org/Claim type. At the time > you said this was a bad idea. Could you articulate your thoughts here in > writing for the record? This design addresses scenarios including sites > like Snopes that want some but not all of their data public, but joinable > with info shared through other channels. Also cases such as translation of > verbatim and paraphrased claim text without mixing up which of those it is. > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, 09:22 Sandro Hawke, <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > >> Meeting as usual tomorrow: https://credweb.org/agenda/20180822 >> >> Two general discussion/brainstorming topics, continuing with two of the >> more promising recent threads: >> >> * Creating an ecosystem of claim sightings (Area 2) >> >> * Creating an ecosystem of securely identified publishers (Area 3 + 4) >> >> Also, a question for anyone reading this who doesn't usually attend >> meetings: would you be interested in having a video recording of the >> meeting available? It would be a bit like a long-form podcast, I suppose. >> >> See y'all tomorrow, >> >> -- Sandro >> >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2018 16:40:59 UTC