- From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:39:50 -0500
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > I've pulled together some article use cases and added them to the Periodical > page (which is also now linked from our vocabulary proposals page). We can > then discuss the proposal in terms of use cases and goals, which should help > us make decisions. > > Please add other use cases to the list. I will try to include examples of > each use case in the examples page. If I have time I'll even link them > properly. :-) Thanks for linking the Periodical proposal from the vocab proposals page. I've added links to the examples in the Periodical proposal that already satisfy two of the use cases, and have added another use case for issues that can be borrowed from a library (which will use the Holdings-as-Offers pattern). I do take issue with the following statement in the use cases: "As individual articles it is not clear that more than one will be recognized by search engines (as reported on public-vocabs, the search engines will only pick up one "thing" from each page). To make this a single thing, it may be necessary to create a bibliography type, with article members." While I agree that an explicit bibliography type might be useful in and of itself, I don't agree with basing vocabulary proposals on trying to satisfy what appear to be current constraints of the search engines. Their behaviour may change entirely tomorrow. And the search engines currently don't seem to display rich snippets for most schema.org types, whether they are a single item on the page or not.
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 17:40:20 UTC