W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > January 2016

Re: Happy New Year from your friends at Wordnik

From: Erin McKean <erin@wordnik.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:31:45 -0800
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5696DE61.7050006@wordnik.com>
Thanks so much! This is a lot ... I'll start taking a look!

If there's anything you (or the list) could point me to about what 
schema.org will make possible for our users, that would also be great. :-)

Thanks again!

Erin

On 1/12/16 6:59 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> Hi Erin !
>
> Let me also CC in the Schema.org mailing list to get you some grounding
> on things (and have others help out here as well).
>
> That's great news that you have at least heard about it and thinking of
> using Schema.org with Wordnik.com.
>
> Wordnik.com (now a non-profit) could use some Schema.org love....ideally
> you would use JSON-LD.  (I used Wordnik's API in the past, very cool.)
>
> Reference Schema.org mailing list thread discussing online dictionaries
> last year, to begin everyone's journey:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Apr/0028.html
>
> The basics I could think of for Wordnik would be uses or extension
> points at:
> https://schema.org/Thing
> https://schema.org/Language ??
>
> Where Thing - name is any "word" in a language, and to start we would
> just need to add an additional Type such as
>
> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/LexicalItem <-- The most
> fitting form for Wordnik I would think and other online dictionaries ?
>
> Other helpful additional Types would be:
>
> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/SyntacticWord
> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/OrthographicWord
> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/Term
> http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/LexicalizedConcept
>
> That's my starting help for you, I'll leave others on the list to chime
> in and take it from there.  I don't think a Schema.org extension for
> this is necessarily warranted, but it might be useful to create one,
> just to understand and merge those useful/needed GOLD concepts to
> Schema.org types/properties ... and in doing so, help other online
> dictionary vendors, such as Wordnik, etc.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Erin McKean <erin@wordnik.com
> <mailto:erin@wordnik.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks so much! I've been keeping an eye on schema.org
>     <http://schema.org>, but I haven't dug deep enough to see what the
>     right markup for Wordnik would be. It looks like this StackOverflow
>     post has some details
>     (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11698336/schema-org-and-an-online-dictionary)
>     but any suggestions would be gratefully received!
>
>     Yours,
>
>     Erin
>     ---------------------
>     Erin McKean
>     Wordnik
>     @emckean/@wordnik/@wordnikapi
>     the Wordnik mission: every English word, available to everyone,
>     everywhere
>
>     PS we're happy to send you some stickers -- just let us know where
>     to address the envelope!
>
>
>     On 1/12/16 12:02 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>
>
>         Get Schema.org JSON-LD scripts into those public Wordnik pages
>         so you
>         can benefit from searchability !
>
>         Thad
>         +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 15 January 2016 09:20:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 15 January 2016 09:20:01 UTC