Re: Argumentation Schema

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the markup examples.  What I am having difficulty in ‘seeing’ is
what a real world example would look like.

If my understanding of the use case is correct I expected to see an
article, or extract from one, that was attributed to an author (plus other
metadata: date, URL, etc) plus supporting or dissenting statement(s)
referencing it, each with their own author, date, etc.  If my understanding
is also correct the supporting/desenting statements are very likely to be
published on different website(s) to the original article.

As to microdata/RDFa/JSON-LD, in all cases the data structures encoded in
these formats would be identical, it is only how they would be encoded into
the html that would differ.  The choice of which serialisation to use would
be down to individual website developers.  This is why examples on [most]
Schema.org documentation pages are supplied in all three formats.

~Richard.


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

On 16 January 2017 at 21:05, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I put some rough draft examples up at:
>
> *https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/>
>
> My thoughts on the discussion question were that more intricate structures
> could be in JSON-LD <script> elements. With microdata/RDFa, the structures
> go atop the markup, atop the natural language; elements are utilized once
> in microdata/RDFa.
>
> *From:* Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
> *Sent:* ‎Monday‎, ‎January‎ ‎16‎, ‎2017 ‎11‎:‎48‎ ‎AM
> *To:* Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* public-schemaorg@w3.org, public-argumentation@w3.org
>
> 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
>>
>>
>