- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:51:29 +0000
- To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CD1647F1.4C5E%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Aaron, Great to hear the practitioners view. I would suggest a extension to Danıs "we prefer [enumerations] to be maintained 'out there in the Web' by expert communities." line, with: ³... and recommend they are openly published and marked up using the Schema vocabulary². Adoption of the SKOS types and properties into Schema would obviously make that easier to achieve. Which is the point I started from in this thread ~Richard. On 11/01/2013 19:20, "Aaron Bradley" <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote: > A quick two cents on some of the recent threads from someone that uses > schema.org <http://schema.org> in markup pretty much daily. > > I agree with all others that have voiced the sentiment that schema.org > <http://schema.org> (with the exceptions already noted, such as expressing a > date in machine-readable format) should focus on "semantic mark-up of visible > text." > > But within those parameters, I for one - from a practical standpoint - > generally welcome the inclusion of external enumerations and controlled values > into schema.org <http://schema.org> . The "practical standpoint" reason for > this is that non-specialist developers and non-technical stakeholders (like > me) are far more likely to use semantic markup where it is supported by a > centralized and well-documented vocabulary like schema.org <http://schema.org> > . > > The spectacularly rapid spread (in relative terms) of schema.org > <http://schema.org> has been driven chiefly by individuals and organizations > that have been provided with a clear value proposition for employing it: that > is, improved visibility in the search results in the form of rich snippets, > inclusion of resources in specialty vertical engines (e.g. Google Recipe > Search), improved social snippets (e.g. Google+) and - increasingly - the > promise of some sort of presence in the Google Knowledge Graph, Bing Snapshots > and other semantically-fueled verticals. > > The breadth of adoption that we've witnessed so far simply wouldn't have > possible without: 1) the clear value of using the vocabulary; 2) the > schema.org <http://schema.org> site, with its clear tables of classes and > properties and extensive examples; and, critically 3) a vocabulary that is > broad and detailed enough to be actually useful in marking up a wide range of > web resources. > > All of this to say that while, in numerous situations, one may very rightfully > say that "this is best handled by employing an external enumeration," or "this > is a better candidate for an specialist extension than incorporation into the > core vocabulary," the richer the vocabulary that is made available to > practitioners like myself via schema.org <http://schema.org> , the greater the > likelihood that it will be employed. > > That is why I and so many of my colleagues were thrilled to see things like > rNews and GoodRelations integration. An Offer property from GoodRelations > like eligibleDuration is immensely useful for many working in ecommerce, but > the likelihood that an ecommerce site that had successfully figured out to > employ schema.org/Offer <http://schema.org/Offer> would additionally add > GoodRelations markup to use that property would be virtually nil. The > addition of GoodRelations properties to this class made it more useful, and so > more likely to be used. > > Dan makes perfect sense when he says "we prefer [enumerations] to be > maintained 'out there in the Web' by expert communities." And Karen is > doubtlessly correct when she says: "I have not seen in this discussion an > example of a value for which a schema.org-specific identifier would provide > capabilities that cannot be provided by an external list." But consider that > the work of those expert communities and the benefits of the lists they've > created will never see their full potential if the work is little-known and > the lists little-used. > > Schema of everything? Bring it on! I jest, but truly - from this > practitioner's point of view - more is generally better when it comes to > schema.org <http://schema.org> . > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: >> On the point from Karen, re " full metadata standard including control >> of the value space." >> >> Excuse me quoting myself, but we tried to set things out in >> http://blog.schema.org/2012/05/schemaorg-markup-for-external-lists.html >> >> a) controlled value spaces are a good thing and to be encouraged >> b) although we have a few modestly sized enumerations within >> schema.org <http://schema.org> , we prefer them to be maintained "out there >> in the Web" by >> expert communities >> >>> >From the blog post, >> >> "The world is too rich, complex and interesting for a single schema to >> describe fully on its own. Withschema.org we aim to find a balance, by >> providing a core schema that covers lots of situations, alongside >> extension mechanisms for extra detail. There are many situations where >> the use of existing controlled vocabularies, standards and datasets >> would improve schema.org <http://schema.org> markup." >> >> The combination of a SKOS-lite model, alongside >> Wikipedia-Wikidata-DBPedia, Freebase hopefully allows for >> decentralised value space management, within a reasonably simple >> schema.org <http://schema.org> base. >> >> cheers, >> >> Dan >> > >
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 22:52:15 UTC