- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:43:18 +1000
- To: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
I caught up with danbri at TPAC, and he kindly explained the nuances of micro data's relationship to the page content. My takeaway is that a new type that's along the lines of WebPageElement might do the job; e.g., something like WPCommentBlock or WPUGCBlock (both of which would nicely aligned with WPAdBlock, I think). Does that make sense? Cheers, > On 26 Aug 2019, at 4:45 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > I'm not sure that would work; I'm looking for a way to mark up content so that e.g., a browser plugin can remove that content (the comments) based upon the users' preferences. It seems like removing *all* Conversations would do that, but would overshoot, having the effect of making Conversation unusable for other purposes. > > Cheers, > > >> On 22 Aug 2019, at 8:11 am, Marijane White <whimar@ohsu.edu> wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> Understood about marking up individual comments being onerous. >> >> As for Conversation being intended for Messages, this is true based on the definition of Conversation and the examples for Message, but the domain and range of the isPartOf/hasPartOf properties is CreativeWork, so I think if you wanted to use Conversation with Comments, it'd be fine. I tend to view property domain/range more as suggestions than constraints. >> >> -Marijane >> >> >> On 2019/08/20, 8:09 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Marijane, >> >> I'm trying to avoid requiring people to mark up each individual comment; that might be seen as onerous. >> >> Conversation is very close to what I'm looking for -- thanks for that reference! It seems, however, that it is intended to hold Message, whereas there's no equivalent container for Comment. On the face of it, it seems odd to put Comment inside of Conversation -- at least as things are currently defined. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >>> On 21 Aug 2019, at 9:31 am, Marijane White <whimar@ohsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> Since a Comment is a CreativeWork, could you use Comment to mark up each individual comment and then use hasPart/isPartOf to relate them to a set of comments as a CreativeWorkSeries? Or, since CreativeWorkSeries is kind of an abstract class used to organize its subtypes, perhaps a set of comments could be a Conversation, which also can be used with hasPart/isPartOf? >>> >>> >>> Marijane White, M.S.L.I.S. >>> Data Librarian, Assistant Professor >>> Oregon Health & Science University Library >>> >>> Phone: 503.494.3484 >>> Email: whimar@ohsu.edu >>> ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5059-4132 >>> >>> >>> On 2019/08/19, 4:12 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Is this community alive? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 2:22 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi schema folk, >>>> >>>> I've been looking for a way to indicate what parts of a Web page are comments; see <https://discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal-comments-element/3483> for the use case. >>>> >>>> I see that something in this area is already defined at <https://schema.org/Comment>, but it's not quite what I'd like; I want to mark the *set* of comments + commenting UX, not just an individual comment. >>>> >>>> Would it be horribly abusive if a page were to do something like: >>>> >>>> """ >>>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Comment"> >>>> >>>> <h3>Comments</h3> >>>> >>>> <div class="comment_css"> >>>> [ comment ] >>>> </div> >>>> >>>> <div class="comment_css"> >>>> [ comment ] >>>> </div> >>>> >>>> <div class="add_comment_css"> >>>> [ add a comment UX ] >>>> </div> >>>> >>>> </div> >>>> """ >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> Is there a better way to do this (including defining a new type)? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 23 September 2019 06:43:51 UTC