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