- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:38:08 +0100
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
On 8 March 2012 17:32, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > > +1 Thanks! Ok, I've updated the Wiki summary, including what is hopefully a near-final summary of the proposal: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Comment#Core_Proposal Here's the raw wiki text directly: == Core Proposal == Proposal finalised in thread leading to [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Mar/0059.html march 8th agreement]: * Add a 'Comment' type, a subclass (e.g. like [http://schema.org/Review Review]) of [http://schema.org/CreativeWork CreativeWork]. ** A comment on an item - for example, a comment on a blog post. * Clarify that the existing [http://schema.org/UserComments UserComments] class represents the [http://schema.org/UserInteraction UserInteraction] event that creates it. * Add a 'text' property to the [http://schema.org/CreativeWork CreativeWork] class, whose value is the [http://schema.org/Text Text] of the work (and hence of the comment); loosely analogous to the 'audio' and 'video' properties of CreativeWork. * Note that this (to some extent) this generalises the articleBody property from [http://schema.org/Article Article] and the reviewBody property from [http://schema.org/Review Review], rather than adding another class-specific property for Comment. * Note that the 'text' property's value is plain text rather than markup, due to Microdata's datamodel restrictions; defer any attempt at markup-valued properties for later work. There were a few fiddly details noted in the issues section. I've drafted resolutions here: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Comment#Issues """ Do we have a property linking a UserComments instance (ie. some UserInteraction) to its resulting Comment? -not directly proposed at this time -note that each UserComments interaction event can have a 'discusses' link to the CreativeWork being commented upon. -note that the resulting Comment (itself also a CreativeWork) will typically be 'about' that same CreativeWork -it seems plausible to expect the dateCreated of the Comment to usually match the commentTime of the UserComments event; however, perhaps spam filtering processes might mean this differ? Do we have any comment-specific properties, or CreativeWork gives us all we need. -"author," "headline," are inherited from CreativeWork (amongst other useful properties); also "about": for a Comment, if it points to an item, the comment is about that item. Address here also other confusions around the UserComments class, such as that its siblings are aggregates and the example goofy? -can be dealt with separately. Recursion; how useful is 'discusses' for linking comments in a thread, since a Comment is a legitimate CreativeWork now? -discusses retains its original purpose (links event of a comment to the thing commented on); 'about' links a Comment CreativeWork to the other Work it comments upon.""" How does this look, folks? Is anyone suffering for lack of a relationship from the UserComments instance to the associated Comment? I'd suggest it could be added later if a case is made. Dan
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:38:38 UTC