- From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 09:08:36 +0100
- To: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- CC: public-vocabs@w3.org, Guha <guha@google.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4EB4EF04.5000204@tu-cottbus.de>
Dear Jeni, Jason and all, Thank you for this useful thread that give some answers to my previous email <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Nov/0021.html>. It is schema.org choice to use url (property of Thing) as a reference mechanism to other objects. I understand that "url" was preferred to "itemid" because of better understanding of the users and easy reusing of the value. I would also conclude that while http://schema.org defines the vocabulary, its extensions principles, and offers examples on how to use it with microdata annotations, it does not explain how a schema.org processor will handle these annotations. Therefore, I would say that *there is no fixed semantics of schema.org* and this was required from the beginning of the initiative. In addition, looks like the OWL ontology <http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl>representation of schema.org does not sync completely because of some major differences such as the ones explained by Peter Mika's email <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Nov/0024.html> to this thread and probably others. As a continuous learner I will come back with new questions soon. -Adrian Giurca On 11/4/2011 10:40 PM, Jason Douglas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com > <mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com>> wrote: > > Jason, > > That's *really* helpful, thank you, especially around the > rationale for the 'url' property. > > You suggest: > > On 4 Nov 2011, at 19:31, Jason Douglas wrote: > > So to throw a strawman out there, maybe we could: > > • State on schema.org <http://schema.org> that Thing/url > is equivalent to itemid and either is accepted. > > If schema.org <http://schema.org> does this, it should also state > what happens when both are specified and they clash. Perhaps they > should be treated as aliases with the @itemid being the canonical URL? > > > Yeah, that sounds right to me. > > > > • Add Thing/sameAs for stating item equivalences (via > URLs) across data sources/sites. > > Nice, I can see the potential for that :) > > I'd love to know whether there are any consumers of schema.org > <http://schema.org> markup that are or plan to aggregate data > across different sites to create a view of information about the > same thing, and indeed whether there are any publishers who are > generating schema.org <http://schema.org> markup with common > @itemids or urls... > > > My day job is Freebase and url mappings to entities (and therefore to > each other) has always been one of the most useful features of that > dataset for developers. I'd love to see that happen on a much bigger > scale... > > -jason > > > Jeni > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com > >
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 08:09:24 UTC