Re: Argumentation Schema

I am finding it difficult to see how these options would work without
having some marked up example use cases to look at.

I am also a little confused by the discussion question about which
microdata/RDFa and JSON-LD scenarios we should be looking at.   In
Schema.org (in the vast majority of cases) the encoding syntax should not
be relevant - the vocabulary should work the same for all three syntaxes.

~Richard.

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

On 16 January 2017 at 16:33, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Schema.org Community Group,
> Argumentation Community Group,
>
> Thank you for your feedback and comments so far. I’ve refactored the
> schemas.
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/
>
> I’m exploring two approaches to modeling argument maps. A first approach
> is to model the relationships between statements or quotations.
>
> *Relationship* — Extends *Intangible* <https://schema.org/Intangible>. A
> relationship between a subject and an object.
> subject: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *Quotation*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *Relationship*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
> <https://schema.org/ItemList> or URI
> object: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *Quotation*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *Relationship*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
> <https://schema.org/ItemList> or URI
>
> A second approach is to model statements which extend CreativeWork and
> which can be interrelated.
>
> *Statement* — Extends *CreativeWork* <http://schema.org/CreativeWork>. A
> statement.
> supports: *Statement*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
> supportedBy: *Statement*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
> opposes: *Statement* <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>
>  or *ItemList* <https://schema.org/ItemList>
> opposedby: *Statement*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> or *ItemList*
> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>
> I’ll explore how the approaches work in Microdata, RDFa and JSON-LD.
>
> Regardless of approach 1 or 2, a topic of argumentation schemas is to
> convenience the expression of agreement and disagreement and to support the
> expression of rationale for so doing.
>
> *AgreeQuotation* — Extends *Quotation*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>. A quotation which
> is agreed with.
> rationale: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *ItemList*
> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>
> *DisagreeQuotation* — Extends *Quotation*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>. A quotation which
> is disagreed with.
> rationale: *Text* <http://schema.org/Text> or *ItemList*
> <https://schema.org/ItemList>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Adam Sobieski
>
>