- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:33:24 +0000
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Cc: Erin McKean <erin@wordnik.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAD47Kz7XogvtuxCecAs-y_XN5J7a_7LdY-EqTAXmrwuuiRrQ+w@mail.gmail.com>
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