Re: schema.org weekend reading: Actions/Activities; Audience draft, and Class/Property.

Ah, right.

On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:58 PM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:

> I was imagining that interlibrary loan would be a 'loan' process between
> organisations, as against organisations and people - applying the principle
> of balance between simplicity and expressiveness.
> 
> ~Richard. 
> 
> 
> On 03/12/2012 09:42, "Dawson, Laura" <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote:
> 
>> Interlibrary loan as well
>> 
>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:38 PM, "Richard Wallis" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Dan,
>>> 
>>> Liking the Actions/Activities proposal.
>>> 
>>> Coming from the library world I would like to see some of the actions that
>>> come from that world being represented in the emerging vocabulary proposals,
>>> such as: loan, reserve (sometimes called 'place hold'), renew loan, return,
>>> obtain licensed access to a resource (eg. Student on a campus to a journal
>>> article).
>>> 
>>> Although close to other actions like rent or buy, the actions for gaining
>>> access to, often free at the point of use, resources via libraries,
>>> university services, etc. is sufficiently different I believe to warrant
>>> such representation.
>>> 
>>> ~Richard.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30/11/2012 19:23, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi folks
>>>> 
>>>> A few things on the schema.org front:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Back in April there was some discussion towards an improved model
>>>> for Actions/Activities. I have just uploaded a new work-in-progress
>>>> document giving a first minimal version of a new approach, based on
>>>> discussion amongst the schema.org partners. It is still in rough form
>>>> but there should be enough to give a good impression of the thinking
>>>> behind it. The draft describes some vocabulary structures that allow
>>>> description of potential/possible future actions, as well as
>>>> actions/activities that have occurred. While this touches on themes
>>>> addressed by a variety of other efforts (including but not limited to
>>>> RSS/Atom/ActivityStreams for past-tense 'activities'; Good Relations
>>>> for commerce-related action opportunities; WebIntents, ...), we have
>>>> focussed for now on describing a basic core structure that balances
>>>> simplicity and expressiveness.
>>>> 
>>>> A fairly short PDF document
>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/7/79/Schema.orgActionsMinimaldraft.pdf
>>>> is linked from http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ActivityActions
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2. The Audience proposal; based on the RDFa schema in
>>>> https://bitbucket.org/elderos/schemaorg/src I've built a test version
>>>> of the schema.org site that includes the Audience proposal (see
>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Audience ). The draft site is at
>>>> http://sdo99a.appspot.com e.g. see http://sdo99a.appspot.com/Audience
>>>> 
>>>> This is the second use of the HTML+RDFa+RDFS extension machinery I
>>>> mentioned recently
>>>> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Nov/0011.html).
>>>> More should follow - there are quite a few proposals pretty much
>>>> ready, so I'll first put them up as individual test sites for review.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Class/Property
>>>> 
>>>> There are several cases (including the above-mentioned Actions draft)
>>>> where it is useful within schema.org to have a first class type
>>>> representing the notion of 'Class', and of 'Property'. This is rather
>>>> meta and while it is not something designed for mainstream webmasters
>>>> to encounter, it will help with structuring and documenting the
>>>> vocabulary.
>>>> 
>>>> I have written up a proposal for adding these (and aliasing them to
>>>> rdfs:Class, rdf:Property) at
>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgMetaSchema  ...alongside
>>>> a proposal to use schema.org/domainIncludes and
>>>> schema.org/rangeIncludes in our RDFa representation of the schema.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Comments on any / all of the above are welcomed; ideally in the
>>>> WebSchemas area of the W3C wiki or here on public-vocabs. If you reply
>>>> by mail please adjust the Subject line to match your topic...
>>>> 
>>>> cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Dan
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 15:01:38 UTC