Re: Proposal: series of "Advanced Use" articles

As for graphics:

I tried to develop a convention for graphics in the GoodRelations User's Guide, which suit very well for schema.org:


    http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Conventions

I am happy to release the OmniGraffle sources under a CC license.

As for generating illustrations automatically: This would clearly be useful, but all my previous attempts in that direction failed - for good graphics, you need a lot of control over the final rendering, e.g. the size and position of elements. What might work is using a too that generates an SVG raw version, which you could then fine-tune manually.

Martin

-----------------------------------
martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp







> On 10 Apr 2015, at 20:23, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 Sunday, 12 April 2015 18:46:42 UTC