- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:02:08 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Dan, If I understand your post correctly, it would not be correct to use http://schema.org/url for pointing from an abstract object (e.g. a product) to the canonical URL of its Web page, or from a person to its main homepage? We are using foaf:page in many GoodRelations patterns, so it would be crucial to know whether it is correct to use http://schema.org/url for a) authoritative identifiers for entities (like http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Lennon or an identifier (!) from Freebase) b) HTML pages and PDF documents containing descriptions of the objects (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon) or both. My current understanding was that 1. http://schema.org/url can be used for both and that search engines will try to guess the nature of the URI/URL, so you can use it for related pages (and PDFs?) as well as for authoritative Web-scale identifiers, and that 2. itemid in Microdata and about in RDFa can be used for assigning identifiers. But now you say that itemid and http://schema.org/url are "broadly equivalent", which confuses me. If that is meant as I read it, then we likely need to add foaf:page and foaf:homePage to schema.org. Thanks in advance for clarifying this. Martin On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > A few observations - > > * We want all Things to be identifiable using URI/IRI/URL identifier notations > > * In the HTML5 the specs use 'URL" rather than "URI"; at launch > Schema.org's primary notation was HTML5 MIcrodata, so we inherit that > usage. But Schema.org also targets mainstream developers and > publishers who often are not so familiar with 'URI' or 'IRI', but feel > they know what an 'URL' is > > See http://developers.whatwg.org/introduction.html#willful-violation > http://developers.whatwg.org/urls.html > > HTML5's usage of 'URL' is explicitly in terms of URI and IRI and the > notion of a 'resource' > > * In RDF, we use 'resource' as a synonym for Thing (ie. all things can > be considered resources), rather than something like > 'http-accessible-information-object', which seems to be some people's > reading of the term. I think Schema.org is closer to the 'thing' > reading. > > * Microdata has an 'itemid' attribute, for Thing identifiers > (analagous to resource= in RDFa Lite), see > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/#resource for the RDFa version. > > * The use of schema.org/url is broadly equivalent to using itemid or > resource attributes from Microdata and RDFa; it takes the items Web > identifier and expresses it explicitly as a property value. > > * There is plenty of room still for interpretation, best practice, > clearer guidelines; the "How do we identify real world entities" > debate is as old as the Web. > > * Schema.org's deployment in mainstream Web content places some > practical constraints for some publishers; for example, a Movie site > where a page /person_321/ links to /tvshow-67241/ might have an > itemprop="actor" (microdata) or property="actor" (rdfa) annotation. > That's nice and simple, but parsing gives the actor TV show the same > URI/IRI/URL as the page describing them; i.e. the http-range-14. A > more complex site design (markup and identiifers) that gives different > IDs to pages and entities is of course possible, but it's not clear > we'd see strong adoption easily. > > So I'd not read too much into 'url'. It's somewhere you can put a Web > identifier for the thing being described. As conventions for this in > the Web standards community mature, we should be able to be more > precise on this. > > Dan > > p.s. http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/sameThingAs is somewhat related > -------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business & web science research group universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) skype: mfhepp twitter: mfhepp Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! ================================================================= * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 10:02:43 UTC