- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:43:37 +0200
- To: Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org Vocabs" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Peter Markov <peter-markov@yandex-team.ru>, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>
+cc: Greg Hi Egor, On 26 June 2012 17:35, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > Hi folks! > Some of our proposals (Medical/Health, TechArticle, LRMI) and also some of > our Yandex people have common ideas floating around. > I mean that currently a publisher cannot explicitly specify target audience > of his site/page/CreativeWork. > > Medical vocabulary proposal contains a type MedicalAudience, which splits > people of medicine into categories expressed as an enumeration. > > LRMI proposal contains intendedEndUserRole property with the same purpose, > contaning some text (which is also a soft enum). > > TechArticle proposal contains property named technicalAudience with Text > type. > > I think we should make a common skeleton for target audiences, so that every > new proposal could build in a new specific audience into our schema. > > First, I made a wiki proposal page, containing some common thoughts about > describing target audience of a CreativeWork: > http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Audience > It can be applied to schema.org/WebPage and schema.org/Product class as > well. > The key concept is that we cannot force all the sites to markup with > constraints, but some of them may want to have some positive recommendations > for expected target audience. > That's why we should provide a way for publishers to say, which people they > want to visit their site (opposite to which they do *not* want). > > Second, the proposal also contains some specific audience constrains: > 1) age and gender for PeopleAudience > 2) a more specific type ParentAudience (with properties about child age) for > describing parents as target audience > > Some examples can be found on the Wiki. > > I think the earlier we structure audiences, the less work we'll need to > change the schema in the future. > Would be glad to hear your thoughts. Thanks for writing this up. You've identified a clear need and some opportunities for offering a cross-domain mechanism that could be very useful. As you know we have just gone live with the medical/health vocabulary, and that provides us with a fairly neutral 'stub' class, http://schema.org/Audience Perhaps we can use that to explore how the LRMI 1.0 work (which seems generally now to be considered 'done' and ready for inclusion) might work with such a mechanism. I've copied Greg who is coordinating the LRMI efforts - Greg, I realise it's late in the process but could you take a look and offer any thoughts on whether a generalised 'Audience' notion would work for you? cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 20:44:06 UTC