Re: Three steps

On 29 November 2012 06:32, Shlomo Sanders
<Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com> wrote:

> I am looking at this snippet that I got from schema.org
>
>           <li itemprop="author" property="author" itemscope="itemscope"
> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" vocab="http://schema.org/"
> typeof="Person">
>              <span itemprop="name" property="name">
>                 <span itemprop="givenName"
> property="givenName">Gerhild</span>
>                 <span itemprop="familyName"
> property="familyName">Wildner</span>
>              </span>
>           </li>
>
> How does itemscope="itemscope" help?

The itemscope attribute is redundant in most places, when itemtype is
also present; itemtype isn't a requirement, though, so itemscope is
always used to mark the start of an object.

> What is the purpose of having both itemprop and property?

"itemprop" and "itemtype" are HTML5 microdata attributes, "property"
and "vocab" are RDFa Lite attributes.

> The following snippet appeared in mail from Jason Ronallo:
>    <span itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"
> itemid="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50016589">
>       <span itemprop="name">J.D. Salinger</span>
>    </span>
>
> In this example itemscope appears with no value. Is that just typo?

In HTML, attributes such as "itemscope", "checked", "disabled", etc do
not need to have a value - values are only required in XML.

> No vocab. Is that OK?
> No property, just itemtype.

"vocab" and "property" are RDFa Lite attributes, so are not required
if the implementation is only using microdata.

>
> We agreed that itemid=http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50016589 is what
> we want but is optional, right?

itemid is always optional, as far as I know.

>
> Shlomo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Ford [mailto:kefo@3windmills.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 17:31
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Three steps
>
> Just to add support to Jason's note, the "itemid" property he included in
> his last example would be ideal, but not mandatory.
>
> We can model People/Organizations, and their relations to CreativeWorks, per
> the current Schema.org guidelines.  It's just that those libraries that do
> not have the technological capability to either mint a URI for a
> Person/Organization or make use of an already minted URI for the same can
> omit the "href" or "itemid" property.  In RDF terms, it just results in a
> blank node.  Perhaps not ideal, but perfectly acceptable.
>
> In any event, the examples at the bottom of http://schema.org/Book for
> "Reviews" omit the "Person" itemtype construct altogether for a simple
> lexical string.
>
> Yours,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On 11/28/2012 09:52 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> It seems to me that Schema.org is already relaxed about these kinds of
>> problems. The value of the author property is _expected_ to be a
>> Person or Organization. Consuming applications on the other hand
>> should expect to get imperfect data, though. Even the Schema.org
>> documentation for a book uses a relative URL from the href to refer to
>> the author. Here's a
>> snippet:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>>    <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>>    by <a itemprop="author" href="/author/jd_salinger.html">J.D.
>> Salinger</a> </div>
>>
>> But maybe this is a bug?
>>
>> As a consuming application I would also expect to see something like
>> this where a string is used:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>>    <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>>    by <span itemprop="author">J.D. Salinger</span> </div>
>>
>> But if you are an implementer, read the documentation, and all you
>> have is an author name as a string, there is nothing keeping you from
>> being more exact with that and doing something like the following.
>> This is probably what the recommendation ought to be if you only have
>> an author name as a string.
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>>    <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>>    by <span itemprop="author" itemscope
>> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">J.D.
>> Salinger</span></span>
>> </div>
>>
>> If you also have some kind of identifier for the person, then you
>> could add an itemid:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>>    <span itemprop="name">The Catcher in the Rye</span>
>>    by <span itemprop="author" itemscope
>> itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"
>> itemid="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50016589"><span
>> itemprop="name">J.D. Salinger</span></span> </div>
>>
>> So while recommendations to the community would be to be as exact as
>> possible there is no requirement that it be so strict.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Richard Wallis
>> <richard.wallis@oclc.org <mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     I’m stepping out of the thread that seems to have developed an all
>>     encompassing life of its own [Itemprop for person] to pick up on an
>>     issue identified in the recent contributions between Karen and myself.
>>
>>     This is the example of how to represent the author when marking up a
>>     work (for now lets assume a book with person as an author).
>>
>>     I said that the author property of the Book should be a URI to a
>>     description of a Person (either a local Person description that
>>     onward links to authority like VIAF, or a direct link to an
>> authority).
>>
>>     Karen, quite rightly came, back to say that a library may only have
>>     a string of characters for the author name so can not do what I
>>     describe.
>>
>>     This sort of scenario leads me to suggest that we approach such
>>     descriptive challenges in a three step process:
>>
>>      1. How to describe what we have, using Schema as it is
>>      2. What changes/enhancements, if any, to Schema could we propose to
>>         improve the description [and pragmatically expect the Schema
>>         group to accept]
>>      3. Provide examples/recipes for how the markup would look in each
>> case
>>
>>
>>     Applying this to the Book->author problem....
>>
>>     Step 1.
>>     schema:Book->author is a property that requires a link to a Person
>>     or Organization – not a literal string.   Therefore example markup
>>     would require links to Person description either externally supplied
>>     or created locally on the fly.
>>
>>     Step 2.
>>     We only have a string for an author name, so why not suggest that
>>     Schema relaxes the restrictions on Book->author to enable the use of
>>     strings.  Taking account of the underlying philosophy behind Schema
>>     (Things not Strings), it is exceedingly unlikely that such a
>>     proposal would be accepted as it would break their related entities
>>     model of the world.
>>
>>     Step 3.
>>     We need to provide examples of how we would markup various
>>     situations that would cope with my ideal view and Karen’s real
>>     situation of only having an author string – plus possibly a few
>>     in-between.  I believe that it would be possible to satisfy Schema’s
>>     need for a Person description (in this case with only a name
>>     property) by creating a description in line on the fly.
>>
>>     I am conscious that as a group we have not been good at sharing
>>     example markup –  I include me in that, my RDFa is not as good as I
>>     would like it to be – how we rectify this is something I ant to
>>     address in the next call. (tomorrow)
>>
>>     ~Richard.
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 09:17:06 UTC