Re: Comment versus UserComments

perhaps simply re-define them as being synonymous with 'text'?

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Sandhaus, Evan <sandhes@nytimes.com> wrote:

> This all sounds great, I like the idea of a text property.
>
> Quick question though - will the articleBody & reviewBody attributes be
> removed/deprecated?
>
> As this would require changes to The NYT implementation and the IPTC rNews
> schema.org documentation, I suggest that we not remove/deprecate these
> properties.
>
> All the best,
>
> Evan
> --
> Evan Sandhaus
> Lead Architect, Semantic Platforms
> The New York Times Company
> @kansandhaus
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
>