- From: Omar Benjelloun <benjello@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:58:54 -0400
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Guha <guha@google.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CACsq2mkzZsMuVwsWG4KHgN6aRUv2uL=eS9EXNBYv9G3-tdYwjw@mail.gmail.com>
One issue with the 'SetOf/X' approach is how to apply it when X is a class defined outside of the schema.org vocabulary. For schema.org: http://schema.org/SetOf/Painting means SetOf ( http://schema.org/Painting) What about a set of http://my.domain.org/PathTo/MyClass ? Should that be represented as: - http://schema.org/SetOf/<escaped_url_for_my_class> or http://my.domain.org/SetOf/PathTo/MyClass ? Something else? -Omar On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote: > I think I like that, it's a good compromise to mitigate the situation, at > least applications which would do something with a item of type 'Painting' > would ignore this data item. The proposal should then include a step to > remove the 'SetOf/' prefix and apply 'Painting' to each row. > > Steph. > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote: > >> Actually, an earlier version of the proposal from Omar dealt with this >> very well by having the typeof='SetOf/Painting'. So, applications that are >> aware of this kind of markup can do the right thing, while others don't >> have the unintended consequence. >> >> guha >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet < >> scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From the proposal: >>> >>> <table typeof="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/"> >>> <thead> >>> <tr> >>> <th property="image">Image</th> >>> <th property="name">Title</th> >>> <th property="dateCreated">Year</th> >>> <th>Technique</th> >>> <th>Dimensions</th> >>> <th property="contentLocation">Gallery</th> >>> </tr> >>> </thead> >>> <tbody>...</tbody> >>> </table> >>> >>> It should be noted that parsers which are not aware of this table >>> extension would generate this information: >>> <> >>> rdf:type schema:Painting; >>> schema:image "Image"; >>> schema:name "Title"; >>> schema:dateCreated "Year"; >>> schema:contentLocation "Gallery" . >>> >>> How do you plane to cope with this situation? Leave it be? Would it have >>> unintended consequences on some applications? >>> >>> Steph. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Omar Benjelloun (عمر بنجلون) < >>> benjello@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Many useful datasets on the Web take the form of tables. The goal of this >>>> proposal is to provide a simple, schema.org-friendly way to "look inside" >>>> these tables, and map their contents into triples. >>>> >>>> This is an early draft proposal developed at Google. We're seeking >>>> feedback from the community. >>>> >>>> The proposal is attached to this e-mail, and will be uploaded to the >>>> WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals page shortly. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Omar >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Steph. >>> >> >> > > > -- > Steph. > -- Omar Benjelloun | benjello@google.com | (415) 845-8516
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 18:59:42 UTC