Re: Proposal: Looking inside tables

Hi,

I created a page for this proposal at:

http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/LookInside

It's also linked from the list of extension proposals, under
"Brainstorming, Use Cases and Advance Notice".

http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals#Brainstorming.2C_Use_Cases_and_Advance_Notice

Cheers,
-Omar


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Omar Benjelloun <benjello@google.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yeap. Thought so.  You might want to actually say exactly that in the
>> proposal, since that helps make it very clear on the usage of @id
>> definitions.
>>
>>
> I tried to clarify. New version is attached.
>
> Thanks,
> -Omar
>
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Omar Benjelloun <benjello@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Thad,
>>>
>>> The type declarations should all use SetOf, whether they're in
>>> schema.org or class URLs from another vocabulary.
>>>
>>> The @id definitions (and other properties) are patterns where the values
>>> of columns will be substituted for each row, to generate the values of the
>>> properties for each instance, so the SetOf substitution doesn't apply to
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Does that help clarify?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Omar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omar,
>>>>
>>>> So the /SetOf/ will be optional in user defined urls or not ?  The
>>>> examples under "Identifers and references" section seem to strip it out, or
>>>> I misunderstood your earlier email :
>>>>
>>>>   "@type": "SetOf/Country",
>>>>
>>>>   "@id": "http://my.domain.org/country/{t1:col:country-code}",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Omar Benjelloun <benjello@google.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Attached is a new version of the proposal that uses SetOf as a way to
>>>>> declare table annotations explicitly (in the HTML mark-up as well as in
>>>>> JSON-LD)
>>>>>
>>>>> @Markus we also considered explicit manipulation of tables in an
>>>>> earlier version of this proposal. I'll try to explain why we went with the
>>>>> current approach:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look at the examples towards the bottom of the document, you'll
>>>>> see that for the more complex cases, the directionality of the mappings is
>>>>> different: instead of mapping from table columns to properties of a type,
>>>>> we map from the type and its properties (sometimes with nesting) to columns
>>>>> / patterns. This is more expressive, as the graph schema structured can be
>>>>> nested, while the table structure is flat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mapping from the type structure to the table columns with an explicit
>>>>> table layer becomes quite heavy, as you first need to define the tables and
>>>>> their columns, then the type/property structure with references to the
>>>>> columns.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the current approach with explicit SetOf is a nice trade-off
>>>>> between simplicity and expressiveness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Omar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Markus Lanthaler <
>>>>> markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:32 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Stéphane, I was going to ask the same question. I think the
>>>>>> problem is even more apparent if you look at the JSON-LD examples in the
>>>>>> draft:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>   "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>>>>>>   "@type": "Painting",
>>>>>>   "dateCreated" : "{http://wp.org/rembrandt-paintings.csv#col:Year}",
>>>>>>   "contentLocation" : "{
>>>>>> http://wp.org/rembrandt-paintings.csv#col:Gallery}",
>>>>>>   "author": "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt"
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not define something which is a bit more explicit at the price of
>>>>>> being a bit more verbose? Something like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>   "@context": "http://schema.org/"
>>>>>>     "rp" : "http://wp.org/rembrandt-paintings.csv#"
>>>>>>   },
>>>>>>   "@type": "Table",   ----- in lack of a better name
>>>>>>   "columnDefinitions": [
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>       "@id": "rp:col:Title",
>>>>>>       "mapsTo": "http://schema.org/name" -- can also be abbrev. to
>>>>>> "name"
>>>>>>     },
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>       "@id": "rp:col:Year",
>>>>>>       "mapsTo": "dateCreated"
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>       "@id": "rp:col:Gallery",
>>>>>>       "mapsTo": "contentLocation"
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>       "constants": {
>>>>>>         "@type": "Painting",
>>>>>>         "author": "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt"
>>>>>>       }
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>   ]
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or in HTML
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <table typeof="Table" vocab="http://schema.org/">
>>>>>>   <thead rel="columnDefinitions">
>>>>>>     <tr>
>>>>>>       <th about="#image" property="mapsTo"
>>>>>> resource="schema:image">Image</th>
>>>>>>       <th about="#title" property="mapsTo"
>>>>>> resource="schema:name">Title</th>
>>>>>>       <th about="#year" property="mapsTo"
>>>>>> resource="schema:dateCreated">Year</th>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Markus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Markus Lanthaler
>>>>>> @markuslanthaler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Omar Benjelloun | benjello@google.com | (415) 845-8516
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Thad
>>>> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>>>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Omar Benjelloun | benjello@google.com | (415) 845-8516
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Thad
>> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Omar Benjelloun | benjello@google.com | (415) 845-8516
>



-- 
Omar Benjelloun | benjello@google.com | (415) 845-8516