Re: A request to use schema.org markup

Adrian, I'm not clear on why this isn't a realistic use case. Do you 
mean that you don't intend to use schema.org markup for this data? Or 
that you don't think that schema.org should be able to be used with this 
data?

kc

On 1/28/13 1:29 AM, Adrian Pohl wrote:
> Hello Karen,
>
> you are right that it probably would be best to make examples in microdata, RDFa 1.1 lite and (optionally) N3.  But I have to say that I wouldn't comply myself with this. See, [1] where I created a wikipage some days ago with exemplary mappings of lobid.org descriptions of:
>
> - an edition/manifestation,
> - an item,
> - a library,
> - a service.
>
> I did this using N3 as this is the notation I can read/write best. And I would perhaps be willing add RDFa lite because that is what we will eventually use in lobid.org to add schema.org markup. But I wouldn't add examples in microdata as - for this specific data - this isn't a realistic use case.
>
> - Adrian
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Lobid_to_schema.org
>
>
>>>> On 27.1.2013 at 19:03, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> This is a request to the group that each of our proposals have examples
>> that conform to schema.org markup. As it says in the documentation:
>>
>> "You use the schema.org vocabulary, along with the microdata format, to
>> add information to your HTML content."
>>
>> I'm fine with those who wish ALSO using RDFa, but using ONLY RDFa has a
>> number of problems.
>>
>> First, it limits the discussion to a (possibly small) subset of the
>> group for whom RDFa is understood. This means that I, for one, cannot
>> comment intelligently on proposals that use only that format because I
>> don't understand it. I believe that the group loses a great deal of
>> subject expertise by having examples that are only understood by a few.
>>
>> Second, schema.org has a microdata format for a purpose, and that
>> purpose is to mark up HTML. I personally want to see proof that any
>> proposals coming out of this group work well in that microdata format,
>> and can be used with actual data. So I would like our examples to follow
>> the format of the schema.org examples, such as:
>>
>> BEFORE schema.org markup:
>>
>> <div>
>>    <h1>Avatar</h1>
>>    <span>Director: James Cameron (born August 16, 1954)</span>
>>    <span>Science fiction</span>
>>    <a href="../movies/avatar-theatrical-trailer.html">Trailer</a>
>> </div>
>>
>> AFTER schema.org markup:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype ="http://schema.org/Movie">
>>     <h1 itemprop="name"&g;Avatar</h1>
>>     <div itemprop="director" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
>>     Director: <span itemprop="name">James Cameron</span> (born <span
>> itemprop="birthDate">August 16, 1954)</span>
>>     </div>
>>     <span itemprop="genre">Science fiction</span>
>>     <a href="../movies/avatar-theatrical-trailer.html"
>> itemprop="trailer">Trailer</a>
>> </div>
>>
>> And as much as possible, I would like us to use real data in our examples.
>>
>> Once this is done I don't care if people want to add JSON or RDFa or RDF
>> or any other possible serialization of this data. But I request that our
>> discussions focus on the example format that is understood by the
>> largest number of group participants. I'm assuming that is schema.org
>> markup of HTML -- if I'm wrong, let me know.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> kc
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 11:22:37 UTC