Re: Argumentation Schema

Hi All,

Sorry for the interruption. I thought this is may be a very easy task for
you. Could you please just send me a Schema example for my
https://a2electronics.com online store.


Regards,

Md. Arifur Rahman / Team Lead  (SEO)  & Graphic Designer

*ABAC Technologies Ltd. <http://abac-bd.com/>* / +8801834892448

*www.abac-bd.com <http://www.abac-bd.com/>www.notunbazar.com
<http://notunbazar.com/>*

[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/tunaaman> [image: Twitter]
<http://twitter.com/tuna_m> [image: Google Plus]
<https://plus.google.com/+ArifurRahmanTanu> [image: Youtube]
<https://www.youtube.com/tunaman7787> [image: Linkedin]
<http://tanur.graphics/bd.linkedin.com/in/tunaman> [image: Dribbble]
<https://dribbble.com/tuna_m> [image: pinterest]
<https://www.pinterest.com/tunaman7787/> [image: skype]
<https://htmlsig.com/skype?username=tunaman7787>

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>