- From: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:10:10 -0800
- To: Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAEiKvUDJGZck_gETwUgttTLQAnQ28hUe0_egcujXoerqnkZ4HA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > >> On 29 February 2012 21:07, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 24 February 2012 16:39, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: >> >> > I've just posted another draft proposal in the W3C wiki, >> >> > http://www.w3.org/wiki/EventSchemaUpdate >> >> > >> >> > From the wrapper text there, >> >> > >> >> > "The proposal comes from the Google teams working with the existing >> >> > Event markup, and has been checked by the other schema.org partners >> >> > prior to publication. See PDF for full details of the proposal." >> >> > >> >> > * "Proposes 3 new properties of Event: eventStatus, >> previousStartDate, >> >> > previousEndDate to support canceled or rescheduled events. >> >> > * Adds eventCategory to support categorised events. >> >> > * Supports recurring events by making startDate and endDate repeated. >> >> > * Encourages use of existing 'url' property (of Thing) to link to >> >> > associated Web pages." >> >> > >> >> > Feedback as ever welcomed here or in the Wiki. >> >> >> >> OK, we didn't get a lot of discussion on this proposal. It has had >> >> some review elsewhere and is based on implementation feedback on the >> >> earlier deployed vocab so I suggest we wrap this one up quickly. >> >> >> >> Consider this a last call for comments on >> >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/EventSchemaUpdate, where btw the phrase 'Last >> >> Call' doesn't have the formality associated with official W3C >> >> standards. Rather it means, "hey, we're expecting to update schema.org >> >> based on this draft Real Soon Now and welcome your comments". Thanks >> >> for any feedback :) >> > >> > >> > my only concern with the proposal is the method proposed for matching >> > multiple startDate values to their corresponding endDate. While the >> > schema.org vocabulary is first and foremost designed for >> representation as >> > microdata, that is by no means the only possible representation. It's >> not >> > clear to me how much that should be a factor in defining the vocabulary. >> > For example, when doing the JSON transformation as specified in the >> > microdata spec, you'd end up with: >> > >> > { >> > "type": "http://schema.org/Event" >> > "properties": { >> > "startDate": [ "2012-2-3", "2012-2-10", "2012-2-17" ], >> > "endDate": [ "2012-2-5", "2012-2-12", "2012-2-19" ], >> > } >> > } >> > >> > JSON arrays are not necessarily ordered by definition, and different >> JSON >> > parsers behave differently in terms of maintaining order. Even XML >> parsers >> > for that matter do not always maintain order. Depending on what schema >> > language you use, I don't believe XML is necessarily ordered. Does the >> > microdata spec provide any guidance in terms of element order, and >> whether >> > than can or should be relied upon to imply meaning to values? >> >> Yes - I kept my concerns quiet on this to see who else was reading, >> but I share exactly your worry here. Schema.org is deployed initially >> in Microdata, but the vocabulary is syntax-neutral and other >> representations (e.g. >> blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html ) are >> important to us. Any thoughts on a structure that would make things >> more explicit and portable? >> > > Nested event items, along the lines of subEvents? Named 'repeatedEvents' > or something similar? > +1. I'm not sure of the exact best pattern either, but I do think nesting would be a much more reliable pattern than repeated values for all the reasons mentioned. -jason
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 21:10:39 UTC