- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:44:56 -0800
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
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