W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > November 2013

RE: Schema.org Actions - an update and call for review

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:56:53 +0100
To: "'Sam Goto'" <goto@google.com>
Cc: "'Yaar Schnitman'" <yaar@google.com>, "'Alexander Shubin'" <ajax@yandex-team.ru>, "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <035901cee498$54f0c430$fed24c90$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, November 18, 2013 7:39 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> > > The other difference is that gmail allows you to specify requirements
> > > for "sub-properties": you can say that
> > > is a required property in the Action instance (example). Thoughts?
> >
> > That's a bit underspecified in Hydra at the moment I think. Currently
> > idea is to use a property's range which again is a class that specifies
> > supportedProperties. That way you get your overall structure. I don't
> > particularly like micro-syntaxes such as
> > because they tend to work well just in a few very-well defined cases. In
> > this case, e.g., I see problems if you need to mix multiple vocabularies
> > (granted, not something schema.org typically cares much about).
> Any other case where this wouldn't work well?

I haven't thought about this much yet but another case might be if you have
a property whose values may be of different types.

The value of a "creator" property, e.g., could be either a company or a
person. If it is a company you may want to require the company's name and
its homepage. When it's a person you require the given name and the last
name. Please note that those properties are required.

But as said.. I need to think about this a bit more

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 19:57:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:40 UTC