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

Re: Using schema.org Dataset metadata properties

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:22:05 +0100
Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-Id: <740BB257-E4CB-4AB0-B343-EC9E0578BA9D@greggkellogg.net>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
On Sep 16, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

> Gregg,
> 
> I’d thought that we would define publisher in the JSON-LD context as:
> 
>   "publisher": { "@id": “schema:publisher", "@type": "@id” }
> 
> which would mean that any literal string would be interpreted as a URL.

Yes, it certainly will; I wasn’t referring to the JSON-LD interpretation, but about the difference in semantic range between dc:publisher and schema:publisher, due to schema.org’s unique (and under-described) semantics.

Gregg

> Jeni
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> Reply: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>>
> Date: 15 September 2014 at 21:29:11
> To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>>
> Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>>
> Subject:  Re: Using schema.org Dataset metadata properties
> 
>> 
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>> 
>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> 
>>> Ivan,
>>> 
>>> Given that we’re adopting JSON-LD for the metadata file, anyone *can* use any vocabulary.  
>> I was thinking that we should including the binding of ‘dc’ to the Dublin Core namespace  
>> so that people can easily add metadata in that scheme if they want to.
>>> 
>>> I think there is huge value in having a predictable structure to metadata, as it helps  
>> with validation, display and conversion. Adopting JSON-LD in effect enforces a particular  
>> structure, eg saying that “publisher” must look like:
>>> 
>>> “publisher”: {
>>> “@id”: "http://www.hefce.ac.uk/“,
>>> “name": "Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)"
>>> }
>>> 
>>> or
>>> 
>>> “publisher”: "http://www.hefce.ac.uk/“
>>> 
>>> and not
>>> 
>>> “publisher”: "Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)"
>>> 
>>> Adopting schema.org normatively would mean saying that “publisher” means what it  
>> means in schema.org, which I think is what we would want to do.
>> 
>> +1, but note that the schema.org content model for publisher would allow either a URI  
>> or a plain literal in this place.
>> 
>> I do think that using schema.org is the most forward-thinking way to go, and as there is  
>> quite an active community, perhaps more amenable to change driven by our use cases, if  
>> the need arises.
>> 
>> Certainly having a standard context which includes common prefixes, similar to RDFa’s  
>> initial context, makes a lot of sense.
>> 
>> Gregg
>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Jeni
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ivan Herman  
>>> Reply: Ivan Herman >
>>> Date: 14 September 2014 at 08:07:03
>>> To: Jeni Tennison >
>>> Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group >
>>> Subject: Re: Using schema.org Dataset metadata properties
>>> 
>>>> I have a meta-question on this. Is the list of terms listed in the document normative  
>> or
>>>> informative? The current document does not make a difference (ie, by default, it is  
>> normative,
>>>> including the references), but I presume this is simply because we never asked ourselves  
>>>> the question.
>>>> 
>>>> At the moment, the text says:
>>>> 
>>>> [[[
>>>> Descriptions may contain any properties defined by [DC-TERMS] to describe the table.  
>>>> This specification does not define any application behaviour associated with these  
>>>> properties being present, except that validation of metadata files must check that,  
>>>> if they are present, they adhere to the syntax defined here.
>>>> ]]]
>>>> 
>>>> This at first suggests that the [Dublin Core] vocabulary is informative (and optional)  
>>>> but then it mandates specific value syntax for some of the properties when validating.  
>>>> I think it could be debated whether this additional validation requirement actually  
>>>> makes the reference normative, but it is not clear. I guess the question is whether  
>> we
>>>> will have a notion of conforming metadata, of a possible metadata validator, and what  
>>>> they are supposed to exactly do.
>>>> 
>>>> Why is this question relevant? Because if the whole section is normative than we MUST  
>>>> make a choice on whether, for a specific goal, we choose DCTERM or schema. If it is informative,  
>>>> there is no problem referring to both and let the end user decide (and, actually, the  
>> exact
>>>> value syntax issue could also be removed simply referring to the definition of these  
>>>> terms by DCMI and schema.org, respectively.)
>>>> 
>>>> (There is also an editorial/W3C issue. There are fairly stringent rules on whether  
>> we
>>>> can refer, _normatively_, to an external document. While this is not a problem with  
>> DCTERM,
>>>> this has not yet done before for schema.org, and it may lead to some discussions...)  
>>>> 
>>>> Ivan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 13 Sep 2014, at 18:28 , Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the current metadata document here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/#common-properties
>>>>> 
>>>>> the spec maps adopts the list of Dublin Core properties for describing tables etc.  
>> As
>>>> ISSUE 6 says, this might not be the right choice: there might be other standard vocabularies  
>>>> that should be used instead or as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the call this week, Dan suggested using schema.org instead, namely the properties  
>>>> on Dataset here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://schema.org/Dataset
>>>>> 
>>>>> The properties there are informed by DCAT which itself was informed by Dublin Core.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jeni
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: CSV on the Web Working Group Issue Tracker
>>>>> Reply: CSV on the Web Working Group >
>>>>> Date: 10 September 2014 at 13:23:37
>>>>> To: jeni@jenitennison.com >
>>>>> Subject: ACTION-26: Write to mailing list re using schema.org rather than dublin  
>> core
>>>> for metadata about csv files, then binding decision on following telcon (CSV on the  
>> Web
>>>> Working Group)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> ACTION-26: Write to mailing list re using schema.org rather than dublin core for  
>> metadata
>>>>>> about csv files, then binding decision on following telcon (CSV on the Web Working  
>>>> Group)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/track/actions/26
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On: Jeni Tennison
>>>>>> Due: 2014-09-17
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please update  
>> your
>>>>>> settings at:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/track/users/33715#settings
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jeni Tennison
>>>>> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>>>> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jeni Tennison
>>> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --  
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 10:22:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:42 UTC