Re: Proposal: series of "Advanced Use" articles

On 10 April 2015 at 18:56, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:
> Am 10. April 2015 19:46:03 MESZ, schrieb Paul Watson <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>:
>>On 10/04/15 18:12, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> On 10 April 2015 at 17:45, Paul Watson
>><lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I'm glad that proposal received such a positive response!
>>>>
>>>> Just thinking about the mechanics of it, since the content of the
>>main
>>>> schema.org domain needs to be deployed from github, it may be easier
>>to set
>>>> up a new subdomain (http://tutorials.schema.org?), add a CMS
>>(Drupal?), and
>>>> then control the publishing of tutorials through the CMS rather than
>>having
>>>> them dependent on release deployments to the main schema.org domain.
>>Any
>>>> existing tutorials linked from http://schema.org/docs/documents.html
>>could
>>>> be re-keyed into the CMS on the subdomain, and 301 redirects set up.
>>> Thanks for starting this discussion! I'd suggest that W3C's Community
>>> Group machinery, which is built on top of Wordpress, ought to be a
>>> reasonable place to start, with simple links from
>>/docs/documents.html
>>> being a reasonable start.
>>>
>>> If you log into https://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg/ with your w3c
>>> account info you should see (from the discreet menu bar at top of
>>> page) that it is all based on Wordpress, so there is a button there
>>> for 'new post', 'new page'. Let's collect questions/topics in Github
>>> as issues and to the extent that there is actually any consensus on
>>> the answers, that should provide raw materials for getting written
>>up.
>>Wordpress is fine by me if it's already set up and ready to use.
>>>
>>> So what topics do folk here think deserve coverage, beyond the basic
>>> 'getting started' guides that already exist?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>>Apart from Martin's proposed tutorial/article on the Goodrelations
>>model
>>in schema.org (which I look forward to) and some of Dan Scott's
>>articles
>>(which I read earlier and were very good), I agree with Aaron that the
>>use of itemref in the schema.org <http://schema.org> context would be a
>>
>>great subject for a tutorial.
>>
>>Plus anything to do with Linked Data in schema.org and the use of
>>multiple schema.org types on a single "item" (I think one of Dan
>>Scott's
>>articles did explain attack this one)
>>
>>And when the proposed schema.org extension mechanism is published then
>>that would certainly be a subject for a number of tutorials.
>>
>>Another source of possible articles would be to browse through the
>>StackOverflow questions about schema.org at
>>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/?tagnames=schema.org&sort=newest
>>
>>and look for any common questions.
>>
>>Finally, I think we should try to provide examples in all 3 formats
>>(Microdata, RDFa, and JSON-LD)
>
> Can we remove Microdata or move it to the end? I think Turtle would be more helpful...

I think it would be a little misleading to focus on Turtle, since as
far as I am aware no significant consumption or publication of
schema.org currently uses that format. Several million sites meanwhile
are publishing schema.org as Microdata, with respectable amounts of
RDFa and fast growing amounts of JSON-LD. Having said that I would see
value in a document along lines of "schema.org for a Semantic Web /
Linked Data audience" which might naturally use Turtle and its
companion query language SPARQL.

Given that there are multiple syntaxes appropriate to schema.org and
that people do tend to conflate schema.org with Microdata it would
(rather than using Turtle) be useful to make some use of graphical
representations, i.e. node-and-arc diagrams. Doing so might also help
emphasise the relationship to entity graph (freebase / google
knowledge graph, wikidata etc etc) approaches. We haven't done enough
of that yet at schema.org, beyond the diagrams in
http://blog.schema.org/2014/06/introducing-role.html

cheers,

Dan

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 18:23:58 UTC