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

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

From: Oli Studholme <w3.org@boblet.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:37:13 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJpND8=fkbNHsoKpJYPPjFt2AeXaumQstrptTdUeDjrueOXFdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Hey all,

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> 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.

The first sentence of Dan’s reply doesn’t really make sense to me, as
without e.g. a name when using the person vocabulary the data is
meaningless. Indeed the validator will flag a Recipe, Person or
Product without name. Using the validator I checked what properties
were required by the main vocabularies:


c&p’ed for your pleasure:
* you must include at least one property from the vocabulary you’re using
* Recipe, Person and Product require the name property
* Event requires the name and dtstart properties (and that the event’s
url property be on the same domain as the base url)
* MusicRecording requires the name, url, duration, and inAlbum properties
* values are only sometimes verified: for example Event’s startdate
and enddate plus MusicRecording’s duration are validated against ISO
8601, but Recipe’s cooktime and totaltime aren’t
* sometimes the tool gives incorrect warnings, for example warning
about Event’s “dtstart“ and “dtend” (not startdate and enddate)

If schema.org vocabularies are going to have (albeit surprisingly
minimal) requirements, the analogy with a dictionary doesn’t work, and
the requirements *should* be documented on schema.org. I also think
each vocabulary should include a minimal valid example, and an example
using every value, as these make it much easier to see how to
implement a schema.org vocabulary. I’m happy to assist with this.

peace - oli studholme

PS I’d love to add vocabulary requirements to
http://html5doctor.com/microdata/ — it’d help answer some of the
comments the article has received
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 16:43:45 UTC

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