Re: two new issues: schema.org booleans; xsd Time and DateTime

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 20 April 2012 22:25, Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com> wrote:
> > Yes, it's great to have these issues opened. Not sure if I should comment
> > here or on the individual threads... I guess I'll start here.
> >
> >> 1. http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/14  "Schema.org
> >> booleans (True/False) vs RDF 'true/false'"
> >
> >
> > This is the third time this question has come up: Martin raised a related
> > issue in Aligning GoodRelations and Schema.org ("Action 3"). And in the
> > Activity/Action proposal we ask whether schema.org should host generic
> > instances of selected action types.
>
> Thanks. That counts Martin twice, since I created the action as a
> result of discussion regarding Good Relations integration.
>
> > Have the schema.org sponsors already designed a general solution for
> this?
> > If not, would it make sense to:
> >   1. Retire any instances masquerading as types (such as schema.org/Trueand
> > schema.org/InStock),
> >   2. Define a few generic instances like
> > http://instance.schema.org/Boolean/true,
> > http://instance.schema.org/ItemAvailability/inStock, and (if the
> > Activity/Action proposal is accepted)
> > http://instance.schema.org/Action/review, and
> >   3. Specify that when a property of type http://schema.org/Foo has text
> > value bar, it is shorthand for the value
> http://instance.schema.org/Foo/bar
> > ?
>
> I like the idea of treating e.g. boolean properties with text value
> 'true' as a kind of shorthand. I don't see much value for using the
> full URL http://schema.org/True in practice. I'm not yet sure about
> the broader model you're proposing, but it doesn't sound implausible.
>

I think the main benefit of the model I proposed is that when a site has a
URL to represent the enumeration (e.g. "In stock" versus "Backordered")
they can provide markup on that page and use that page as the carrier of
the schema.org enumeration or value. This can be useful to users as that
page often contains more information about the state than can be encoded in
schema.org.

In this light I think we're ok with saying
>  - the preferred use of a boolean-expecting property is with strings
> 'true', 'false' (this looks ok in both microdata and rdfa lite)
>  - requiresSubscription documentation is in error; I'd suggest a new
> text along these lines: "Indicates if use of the media require a
> subscription (either paid or free). Expected values are 'true',
> 'false' (but note that an earlier version allowed 'yes', 'no')."
>  - add an expected type of Boolean to mainContentOfPage (and evaluate
> whether its existing expected type, WebPageElement is useful)
>
> How does that look to you all?


Fine as far as it goes. I'd really like to make it possible for e.g.
"requiresSubscription" to have a URL value that further describes (to
humans) how to obtain the subscription that is required.

d