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

Re: Feedback on Dataset Schema

From: Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:05:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKNUSvGgXZC3MeKLiXOWWQH_m1ERGPeQSS59YAxfsn3MDvz3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
Hi Dan, Leigh,

As I commented in another thread, a "license" property seems
appropriate for a number of existing CreativeWork subtypes in addition
to Dataset, e.g. SoftwareApplication, MusicRecording, Photograph, etc.
 It would make the most sense to define it at the CreativeWork level,
were it not for the issue you have mentioned.  As it is, should
ds:license be removed from the proposal?



On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> On 12 July 2012 12:38, Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com> wrote:
>> On 12 July 2012 10:39, Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com> wrote:
>>>> I note that the table in the wiki refers to ds:license but this is not
>>>> called out anywhere.
>>> Currently, the idea is simply to point to a WebPage about the license,
>>> but I'm open to other suggestions.
>> I think thats probably sufficient. Most licenses have a clear
>> destination page. Would be nice to have the property documented and an
>> example added.
>>>> Does a generic license property apply to the
>>>> Dataset schema or is there a more general term?
> We should probably add this to the FAQ, as it crops up a lot: the
> schema.org project does not plan to get into the business of
> representing licenses or similar restrictions. There is some risk such
> properties would be misunderstood, as described
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0093.html
> ... excerpting: "We don't want schema.org's descriptive vocabulary to
> be misinterpreted by anyone as proscriptive, i.e. as something broadly
> like the http://www.robotstxt.org/ protocol  - as a way of
> communicating with search service providers."
> I realise that describing license info is an important concern for
> many. Both RDFa and Microdata provide syntactic options for
> non-schema.org properties to be mixed in with schema.org-based
> descriptions. Alternatively, others (e.g. IPTC rNews and LRMI) have
> chosen to document usage patterns for properties which aren't
> officially documented at schema.org. I hope some similar compromise
> design can meet people's needs here.
> Dan
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 21:06:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:47 UTC