Re: A request to use schema.org markup

On 1/28/13 12:53 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Karen, all,
>
> +1 for keeping to implemented/implementable examples either as RDFa lite
> or microdata (as Europeana will use RDFa, I am uncomfortable with having
> microdata only, though).

I agree with this -- that we have RDFa lite AND microdata, and if 
someone wants to include turtle, who's to stop them :-)? But at the 
moment we have some proposals with RDFa only, some with N3 only, and 
perhaps some with microdata only, and we need a bit of order in this 
corner of the universe.

>
> Two notes:
>
> - I think the "BEFORE schema.org markup" section can be skipped, having
> the "AFTER schema.org markup" one is enough: (i) syntactic highlighting
> will allow readers to figure out what the example without markup is and
> (ii) anyway the HTML code will display the same (hopefully ;-) ) when
> loaded in a browser.

I'm ok with not requiring the BEFORE. Personally I find it easier to 
start there because it makes me think more about the display before I 
start adding other markup. If you can't mark up what you would have 
normally displayed, then you might need to rethink things. But that's 
just my favorite method.

>
> - On the turtle-ish section: I'd be glad to help, but as I don't know
> which is "that" page...
> I'd assume however you can just load the mark-up into a distiller and
> copy-paste the result, as already done in
> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CommonEndeavor

I removed the "turtle-ish" section -- it wasn't appropriate to the 
example. But do tell me about this distiller... from what to what? Is 
there one that is mainly used?

Thanks,
kc

>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
>> Thanks, Jason. As I look at that page I think that the turtle-ish
>> section is actually more of a mock-up of what data might be in a
>> database. (I have this tendency to fall into database-brain when
>> thinking about metadata, so maybe that's what happened here.) I think
>> that section should be deleted because it isn't the same as the
>> microdata example. If someone wants to replace it with similar code
>> that reflects the microdata example, ... go for it. Unless I hear
>> otherwise I'll take that code out, however.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 1/28/13 9:27 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
>>> I agree that proposals ought to take the format which the Schema.org
>>> examples currently take with before and after examples. It seems the
>>> best way forward for acceptance into Schema.org is that proposals be
>>> in nicely formatted HTML using the Microdata syntax. If it can't be
>>> expressed through Microdata in HTML, then it is probably not something
>>> that is going to gain acceptance. Other formats ought to be considered
>>> optional additions to the core of a particular proposal.
>>>
>>> I updated the CommonEndeavor example to have "before" markup. I
>>> haven't done anything to make the markup more realistic from what was
>>> there before I got to it, and I haven't made any changes to the
>>> Microdata. I just wanted to get these into some basic shape, so that
>>> we could discuss the merits of the proposal and make adjustments to
>>> the proposal as necessary.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM, 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
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 23:45:24 UTC