RE: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example

Jason,

I'm fine with the commonEndeavor part, but I think we need to consider
schema:url more closely. I agree that their definition and examples of
schema:url is vague and could be interpreted in a variety of ways
including itemid/rdf:about, foaf:page, foaf:focus, owl:sameAs,
rdfs:seeAlso, and the list goes on. RDF converters won't support the
schema:url/itemid alias, though, so I think that one should be removed
from the table.

Part of the reason for wanting it off the table is that there is an
extremely important use case in our domain where it makes perfect sense
to use schema:url: the description of a Web resource. In MARC terms,
this is what we should use to map the 856 40 $a field.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Ronallo [mailto:jronallo@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 2:04 PM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: cleaned up CommonEndeavor example
> 
> I took a stab at cleaning up the CommonEndeavor HTML Microdata example
> [1] for human readability and syntactic correctness. You can look at
> the history to see the exact changes I made. I tried to stay true to
> what I thought the intention of the original example was, though I
have
> some questions about that below.
> 
> I also included the parsed output from this example as both JSON and
> N3, and you can see the tools I used to generate this output. (I find
> the JSON easier to read myself.)
> 
> Is there a URI for this Book? If so it could be used either as the
> value of the itemid attribute or as the value of the url property. If
> itemid is used in the example, then it would remove some blank nodes
in
> the RDF output. (Microdata processors that know about the Schema.org
> vocabulary should probably treat the url property in the same way.
> Schema.org promotes the url property instead of itemid for some
> reason.) Even though the Schema.org examples don't use itemid there is
> no reason why we couldn't show better examples that do use the
> attribute.
> 
> If commonEndeavor is a property of CreativeWork then the expected type
> (as is given in the Overview section) should be a CreativeWork.
> Currently, how this parses is as a list of URLs (since the value of an
> itemprop on an a element is the value of the href attribute). So I
> think the example is a poor one as it doesn't show how we'd like this
> to be used. This might in fact be the kind of data that publishers end
> up creating, but the example we give should be more correct and show
> more of the expressiveness.
> 
> Is the CommonEndeavor proposal one that the group is still considering
> pursuing? If so, I can update the example to use the expected type for
> this property. I mainly just wanted to give an example of how the
> examples could be formatted to make it easier to evaluate them and
show
> the tools used to generate the output. If there is a desire an RDFa
> Lite example with resulting RDF could also be created, though it ought
> to be very similar to the Microdata one.
> 
> Jason
> 
> [1]
>
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor#Simple_exam
> ple_showing_HTML_markup
>

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 20:24:49 UTC