Re: Redefine and reuse?

Actually Karen,

Schema.org does indeed ONLY WORK by reading documentation and applying it.
 And the hope is that everyone does indeed read it, use it, and promote it.
 It is completely up to users & web developers to implement...and something
that does not have any effect or have any synergy unless web developers and
users embrace that documentation we call, Schema.org   It means nothing
without proper documentation AND the use of it.

(Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc, cannot force developers to make modifications to
their sites....as hard as they have tried.  Sure they can apply some bot
technology to make some assumptions about what we mean given a certain tag
or string...but that can only get you so far.  Ambiguity rears its head
often.  And that ambiguity is the basis for Schema.org, least I remind you.
:-)  )



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 7/23/13 7:43 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>
>> I suspect here one answer is "domain-specific documentation", along the
>> lines of http://schema.org/docs/**meddocs.html<http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html>- if we don't have an
>> extension mechanism available that allows processors to fall back to
>> "sku" when they encounter "callnumber", then having a "Documentation for
>> bibliographic types" page that says "Here's how you mark up items that
>> you have available for sale or loan using Offer", with examples, should
>> fill the gap reasonably well. Particularly if said documentation is
>> available _from_ the schema.org site.
>>
>
> Dan,
>
> While not opposed to documentation or "best practices," given human nature
> I am wary of developing anything that only works if the users have read the
> documentation. ;-)
>
>
> kc
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>


-- 
-Thad
Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>