RE: prevalence of schema.org/Book

Karen,

I believe that extension tokens added to Schema.org classes are
interpreted as subclasses rather than as properties. It's possible they
could deduce that these are intended to be properties in that class
domain from the usage as such, but I haven't seen them consider the
possibility. I suspect it will be GIGO, but maybe I missed it. Their
advice is to have properties extend other properties like
http://schema.org/creator/architect. Unlike schema:Thing, though, there
is no top property.

Schema.org does have an OWL ontology, so it should be possible to see
how they've justified the same property in multiple classes.

http://www.schema.org/docs/datamodel.html

Assuming they take OWL seriously, they would infer new types for the
entity if properties were mixed and matched. If example, if the claimed
type is schema:Book and somebody used the schema:sku property, they
could infer it is also a schema:Product.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:02 PM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: prevalence of schema.org/Book
> 
> Wow, thanks. It's great to see "real data."
> 
> Some of the non-book ones are legitimate in other contexts in
> schema.org, specifically:
> 
> http://schema.org/Book/price*
> http://schema.org/Book/priceCurrency*
> http://schema.org/Book/ratingValue*
> 
> Oftentimes properties are "included" in a schema.org schema from other
> areas of the vocabulary, but I don't know if that is required. Could
> you just use:
> 
> http://schema.org/ratingValue
> 
> ? or does it have to be imported into /Book to be usable? If either is
> "valid" (with "validity" having a wide range in schema.org), is one
> preferable, e.g. is adding 'ratingValue' to the Book schema clearer
for
> applications that will use the data?
> 
> kc
> 
> On 1/24/13 7:50 PM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As this group progresses, I thought it might be useful to begin to
> > look at how schema.org is already being used for marking up
> > bibliographic content. Having more data might help make better
> > proposals.
> >
> > So I took a quick look at some of the data that already exists and
> > wrote it up here:
> > http://jronallo.github.com/blog/the-prevalence-of-schema-dot-org-
> book-properties-in-the-wild/
> >
> > What other questions do folks have that existing data like this
might
> > help answer? I'm hoping to take a closer look at the Web Data
Commons
> > corpus eventually.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 20:26:10 UTC