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

Re: Range of brand

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 16:34:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+Hm6DWToJ3VguoeS_FtBpssPtuvz6O9+7A2z9MQfD7jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
On 9 September 2016 at 16:17, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On 9 September 2016 at 15:04, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I would like to use the term "brand" in some of my data with a text
> literal.
> >
> > Basically the reason is half laziness half to save complexity
> >
> > SO I'd like to do:
> >
> > <#playlist> schema : brand  "Disney"
> >
> > as text instead of linking to a URI
> >
> > https://schema.org/brand
> >
> > Looking at the description there text is not allowed.
> >
> > 1. If I decide to "cheat" (maybe as a stop gap until I can make something
> > better) ... would this be a big problem?
> > 2. Alternatively is there some other term that could be used that takes a
> > text field,
> > 3. or finally would it make any sense to allow brands to also be text
> > values?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
>
> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html has our language on
> semi-expecting 'strings' where we are officially expecting 'things'.
>

Excellent!


>
> Why not just do something like  ... "brand": {  "name": "Disney" } ?
>
> (or even type it Brand or Organization if you can spare an extra triple)
>

Did I mention laziness? :)

Well actually im not just authoring markup, im consuming it and trying to
make a searchable index, on a largish dataset.  Your markup is quite
convincing as the way forward.  I'll give both a try and do some
benchimarking.


>
> Dan
>
Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 14:34:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 September 2016 14:34:52 UTC