W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Redefine and reuse?

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:27:18 -0700
Message-ID: <51EF1156.6090907@kcoyle.net>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 7/23/13 2:58 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> Karen,
> Is it your wish or intent to have things bubble up into Schema.org
> quicker, perhaps even existing proposals and extensions, with the idea
> that they are "beta" or "in_proposal" ...rather than them living under
> the http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/.....
> <http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas> until they are "accepted" into
> Schema.org officially ?

No, I hadn't thought of that. I would be hesitant to suggest that anyone 
use proposals until they've been accepted into schema.org. It might make 
sense to have a "beta" capability for testing, however, although anyone 
making use of a beta would need to know that things could change.

> One thing that could really help is on the main site landing page say
> and note :
> 1. We allow extensions and if you do not find what your looking for,
> then read our docs about Extending Schema.org at
> http://www.schema.org/docs/extension.html

I had understood that the extension mechanism has fallen into 
dis-repair, of a sorts, and needs to be seriously revised. Dan Scott 
posted very recently a request for more clarification on extensions. So 
until then, perhaps it isn't a good idea to point people to it as a 

The other aspect of extensions is what search engine services one might 
expect from them. I'm curious if any live sites using the Product 
Ontology can speak about their experience?


> 2. We have Many more additional Types and Properties not found yet in
> Schema.org.  Some are in flux and under discussion and proposal, please
> join the discussion at http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>     Thad, perhaps I was too flip. We cannot assume that everyone will
>     read everything on the schema.org <http://schema.org> site before
>     marking up some HTML. And we can't assume that everyone adding
>     markup to a Web page is a "developer." The more apparent and
>     accessible the schema information is, the more likely it is to be
>     used. Expecting people to look for and make use of additional
>     documentation in their particular area may not be a successful model.
>     It looks to me like the medical community model is that experts will
>     create the data, and everyone from the public to experts will
>     consume it. They may be able to assume that those creating the data
>     will be trained to do so. Bibliographic data is widely created by
>     people who are not experts in bibliographic data creation, and who
>     get no training in that area; this includes most authors, many
>     readers (LibraryThing, GoodReads), and lot of merchants. (For the
>     bibliographic skills of the latter, look at data provided by
>     Amazon's third party booksellers.)
>     I'd rather not expect that users of bibliographic data need to go
>     further than users of, say, event information, in order to make use
>     of schema.org <http://schema.org>. I actually want rank amateurs to
>     be able to contribute in this area (unlike medicine, which for good
>     reasons may wish to discourage amateurs). It may be a small barrier,
>     but it could still be a barrier.
>     kc
>     On 7/23/13 1:15 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>         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
>         <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>         <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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>
>                  <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 <http://schema.org>
>         <http://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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>         <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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
>         <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>>
>         Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/__thadguidry/
>         <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto: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/>

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 23:27:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:00 UTC