- From: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:27:20 -0700
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- Cc: Elias Kaerle <elias.kaerle@sti2.at>, Bäck, Gerald <gerald@baeck.at>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMbipBsp6AX0RV1CFUAvPyPOcrUC2MOqyWSuvRrOk5vudtR6ug@mail.gmail.com>
"Broadening out the question of the possibility of a publisher being a Person or an Organization, to any CreativeWork, that does in this age of self-publishing have something [i]n its favour." +1 to this. The requirements of specific data consumers entirely aside, one more than one occasion having Organization as the sole expected type has either struck me as limiting, or *has *been limiting. To cite the most obvious use case, the publisher of a single-author blog is almost always the Person who is that single author, and it's limiting not to be able to declare that without either reverting to a text string or using an unexpected type. On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Richard Wallis < richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote: > From a Schema.org vocabulary point of view no properties are deemed to be > required. > > In the case of the Google SDTT complaining about missing fields it is > advising you on *their* requirements for displaying information about > organisations (e.g.. asking for a logo) etc. Questions regarding the needs > should be addressed to their developer mailing lists. > > This list is inly for discussions regarding the vocabulary itself. > > In the particular circumstance you describe, I would probably not have > applied a publisher to individual BlogPostings for which an author would > suffice. However I would have associated each post as being ‘partOf’ a > Blog which optionally would have a ‘publisher’ reference. > > Broadening out the question of the possibility of a publisher being a > Person or an Organization, to any CreativeWork, that does in this age of > self-publishing have something n its favour. > > ~Richard. > > > > Richard Wallis > Founder, Data Liberate > http://dataliberate.com > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis > Twitter: @rjw > > On 7 June 2016 at 11:44, Elias Kaerle <elias.kaerle@sti2.at> wrote: > >> Hi Gerald, >> >> I agree. Another solution could be to simply accept schema:Person and >> schema:Organization as publisher. >> >> Maybe one of the people maintaining schema.org can comment on that >> issue!? >> >> Best, Elias >> >> >> On 07.06.2016 10:59, Bäck, Gerald wrote: >> > Hi Elias, >> > >> > the interesting thing is, if you put a logo field into the person >> entity, >> > google validator claims that a logo field is not valid within the person >> > entity:) The conclusion is that persons cannot be publishers, which is >> > simply wrong. >> > >> > My proposal is to get rid of the publisher entity as a requirement, >> because >> > blogposts and websites still need an author which should be enough for >> > private run blogs. >> > >> > best wishes, Gerald >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ---- >> > DI Gerald Bäck | fb <https://facebook.com/geraldbaeck> | blog >> > <http://www.baeck.at/> | devblog <http://dev.baeck.at> | fitblog >> > <http://fitness.baeck.at> | +43 664 5107761 <+436645107761> >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Elias Kaerle <elias.kaerle@sti2.at> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Gerald, >> >> >> >> this is indeed a strange behaviour. I would blame it on the way >> Google's >> >> structured data testing tool works: it does, as far as i know, not >> >> necessarily validate/verify annotations strictly the way schema.org >> >> defines them, but more in a way they need the annotations for feeding >> >> their Rich Snippets and Rich Cards. >> >> >> >> So I would assume Google doesn't care about having a schema:Person as a >> >> publisher, but requires a logo (or some kind of picture) to process a >> >> beautiful Rich Snippet/Rich Card out of it. >> >> >> >> Best, Elias >> >> >> >> On 07.06.2016 08:36, Bäck, Gerald wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I am currently doing my first steps with JSON-LD and try it on my >> private >> >>> blog. As far as I understand Blogposts do require a publisher field, >> >> which >> >>> can only be an organisation. But I think it should be possible for >> >> persons >> >>> to be publishers too, but I also would like to question, that >> blogposts >> >> or >> >>> even Websites do need a publisher field at all. >> >>> >> >>> I tested my blog with Google's Structured Data Testing Tool. >> >> Interestingly >> >>> enough the tool did not complain about the publisher being a Person, >> but >> >>> that the publisher entitiy had no logo, which on the other hand is not >> >>> allowed as a field for a person. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baeck.at%2Fblog%2F2016%2F05%2F30%2FWahlmanipulationen%2F >> >>> >> >>> I also tested the root of my blog, which is defined as website, also >> with >> >>> myself as a publisher person. This time the tool was fine with it. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baeck.at%2F >> >>> >> >>> thx, Gerald >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ---- >> >>> DI Gerald Bäck | fb <https://facebook.com/geraldbaeck> | blog >> >>> <http://www.baeck.at/> | devblog <http://dev.baeck.at> | fitblog >> >>> <http://fitness.baeck.at> | +43 664 5107761 <+436645107761> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Elias Kärle, MSc >> >> Semantic Technology Institute >> >> University of Innsbruck >> >> >> >> ICT - Technologie Park Innsbruck >> >> 2nd Floor, Room 3S02 >> >> Technikerstrasse, 21a >> >> 6020 Innsbruck >> >> Austria >> >> >> >> Tel.: (+43) 512 507 53738 >> >> Skype: elias.kaerle >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> Elias Kärle, MSc >> Semantic Technology Institute >> University of Innsbruck >> >> ICT - Technologie Park Innsbruck >> 2nd Floor, Room 3S02 >> Technikerstrasse, 21a >> 6020 Innsbruck >> Austria >> >> Tel.: (+43) 512 507 53738 >> Skype: elias.kaerle >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2016 21:27:50 UTC