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

Re: Audience proposal [and LRMI, and http://schema.org/Audience]

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:27:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=T-uGx0=e_NiOf7jJPWZFuagz+zJmbwDDWSqxeS_g42tA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>, Phil Barker <phil@pjjk.net>, Stuart Sutton <sasutton@dublincore.net>, zoe.f.rose@gmail.com, "public-vocabs@w3.org Vocabs" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Peter Markov <peter-markov@yandex-team.ru>
I do like the style of the-specification and also think it would be
great to get this under the schema.org umbrella.

But...a couple of actually rather general points -

For one, what do these things /mean/? I hate to be a logic Nazi, but
is "Expected Type" the same as rdfs:range? I'm not necessarily
suggesting using RDFS terminology, but "Expected Type" is rather vague
- what if you don't get the expected type, what interpretation should
you take?

The other point I take a little issue with is the whole pattern around
schema.org/URL -

In this context:

The URL where the owner specifies permissions for using the resource.

That seems contrary to the spirit, and very possibly the practicality
of WebArch. Why not just useRights - with the object being the name
(URL) of the resource that fulfils..?

Maybe nitpicking, but castles built of sand - last for millenia with a
bit of cement.


On 27 June 2012 21:03, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> +cc Greg, Zoe, Phil, Stuart ... with whom I've variously been
> discussing LRMI integration
> 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).
> Looking at this again ... in terms of "what can we do now for
> integration, while still moving quickly towards including LRMI 1.0"?
> >From LRMI, as you say, http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification
> * intendedEndUserRole   schema.org/Text The individual or group for
> which the work in question was produced. Ex: “student” Ex: “teacher”
> Would a minimalistic improvement here be, to allow intendedEndUserRole
> to also (as an alternative) point to a thing of type
> http://schema.org/Audience ?
> This would immediately -for example- permit use of the specific
> defined instances of http://schema.org/MedicalAudience we added
> earlier this week such as http://schema.org/Clinician ... as well as
> other approaches as explored in
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Audience  ... While schema.org might
> define a few useful kinds of audience, we won't be able to anticipate
> every such type - hopefully various educational standards and others
> will get expressed this way and included via URL references.
> Would an 'intended end user role' of http://schema.org/Clinician even
> make sense in an LRMI context? Should we define similar builtins for
> the given examples, i.e. Student and Teacher ? Are there controlled
> lists out there somewhere?
> How does the general approach sound here, i.e. allowing
> intendedEndUserRole to point to an instance of
> http://schema.org/Audience? I'm concerned that we find a way to have a
> general approach to characterising audiences, but also to move ahead
> quickly with LRMI...
> cheers,
> Dan
> ps. for in-depth LRMI background, see videos in
> http://www.lrmi.net/metadata-lab-video


http://webbeep.it  - text to tones and back again
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 20:27:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:46 UTC