W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Is name required in http://schema.org/person ?

From: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:52:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4F1882A2.6010907@gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Dan,

Thanks for this detailed answer.
I've replace familyName & givenName by name, just in case.
I also confirm the issue with the rich snippet tools : if I remove the 
property "about" on

<div itemprop="about" itemscope="itemscope" 

this rich snippet tools is displaying the image associated with the page.

BTW, another suggestion for the rich snippets tool : if a publisher is 
specified (through rel="publisher") on a page with a clearly identified 
schema.org type through itemprop="about" or itemprop="mainContentOfPage" 
(like Person/Product/Company), I would tend to display the picture of 
the main content, if any, instead of the logo of the publisher. (could 
be also useful the day rich snippets will be enabled on google for my 
website ;))


Le 19/01/12 11:22, Dan Brickley a écrit :
>> On 1/19/2012 7:32 AM, Jocelyn Fournier wrote:
>>> According to http://www.schema.org/Person, familyName&  givenName could be
>>> used in replacement for name.
>>> However, if I'm not providing name, Rich Snippets Testing Tool complains
>>> about missing required field "name (fn)".
>>> Is this a bug in the schema.org documentation, or in the Rich Snippets
>>> Tool ?
> It's a bit of both. I don't think """familyName: Family name. In the
> U.S., the last name of an Person. This can be used along with
> givenName instead of the Name property.""" is entirely adequate as a
> definition (not least because the U.S. is very multi-cultural). But
> ultimately, the schema.org documentation tells you more about the
> meaning of the property, and less about its usage in some particular
> (evolving, complex...) Web service.
> So here, we should read this documentation as saying "schema.org's
> givenName and familyName properties provide an alternative way of
> describing a person's name to a general name property'. Whether
> different parts of the Rich Snippets product support that is another
> matter. Rich Snippets is not obliged as a schema.org implementation to
> track all the equivalent or near-equivalent forms of expression
> documented in schema.org. Also, schema.org is not obliged to (or
> capable of) documenting all the shared information-consuming habits of
> the services that use it. But that said, we can't be too abstract here
> --- It seems reasonable to expect services to handle the most obvious
> equivalencies, and for schema.org to document the most obvious very
> general-purpose common patterns.
> On 19 January 2012 09:52, Adrian Giurca<giurca@tu-cottbus.de>  wrote:
>> I would say, actually Schema.org does not define required properties. But
>> maybe I'm wrong...
> At its core, schema.org is more or less a kind of dictionary, in that
> it describes the meaning of some terms you can use. Just as
> dictionaries don't tell you exactly what to say, nor does schema.org.
> Specific products and services (like Rich Snippets) will have specific
> information needs and expectations, and ultimately it's their job to
> communicate those details. However in practice there are some patterns
> that are fairly common across applications. The high-level properties
> that apply to everything (ie. to http://schema.org/Thing), i.e.
> description, image, name, URL (alongside a type), are generically
> useful in many schema.org Web-based apps. You see similar in many
> contexts, for example Open Graph Protocol has title/type/url/image at
> the top level. Beyond this, each class of thing described at
> schema.org is described with a bundle of properties, and so (stating
> the obvious?) many applications often expect a few of those properties
> together to do something useful.  It is unusual for example for an
> application that does something useful with 'longitude' to not
> simultaneously require 'latitude' (and also sometimes 'elevation'...).
> But we cannot attempt to catalogue all such applications and their
> needs, which is why schema.org's data model and schema system can seem
> strangely passive and declarative compared for e.g. to XML DTDs, which
> are much more 'needy'.
> Schema.org is fundamentally a collaboration around vocabulary and
> shared data structures, rather than around products or applications,
> so its main documentation is much more focussed on the terms and some
> example descriptions than on 'musts' and 'shoulds' regarding what
> information is needed in specific application-specific contexts. This
> emphasis allows us to flow information between a wider variety of
> environments. A dictionary-like approach, on its own, can feel
> frustratingly under-specified. We have a space in W3C's wiki for more
> informal, additional information - http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas -
> that can be used to track more specific constraints, application
> information needs etc. (or links to those, e.g. to Rich Snippets
> documentation or docs from other projects using schema.org
> vocabulary).
> As for whether to report Rich Snippets issues here --- I'll try to
> find a more appropriate and direct mechanism (and I'll do my best to
> relay issues to that team), but for now it is good to hear back from
> people working with practical markup details of schema.org deployment,
> so mailing here is fine. It's best not to assume that mail sent here
> will necessarily be read by the Rich Snippets team but the topic is
> perfectly in scope for this list to discuss.
> Hope that helps,
> Dan
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:53:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:44 UTC