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

Re: Happy New Year from your friends at Wordnik

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:33:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz7XogvtuxCecAs-y_XN5J7a_7LdY-EqTAXmrwuuiRrQ+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Erin McKean <erin@wordnik.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Not a total answer but I believe that my proposal for EnumerationValue
would be helpful here <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/894>.
There is an associated pull request (#924
<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/924>) with example etc.  One
of the examples being a term from a legal dictionary.

~Richard.


Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 13 January 2016 at 02:59, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> 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> wrote:
>
>> Thanks so much! I've been keeping an eye on 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 09:33:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 15 January 2016 09:33:55 UTC