Re: A request to use schema.org markup

schema.org markup in lobid.org of course is a realistic use case and we think it makes sense. We intend to add schema.org markup to lobid.org during the next months. I just wanted to say that the use of _microdata_ is not realistic in this case as we will stick to RDFa. Thus, writing down examples in microdata doesn't make sense at least for this use case...

- Adrian

>>> On 28.1.2013 at 12:22, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: 
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 15:18:45 UTC