Re: status of the TV/Radio proposal

On 11/8/13 1:47 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:

>>
>
> One option is to keep schema:area as-is for now, and extend its domain
> (and amend the corresponding description) when new use-cases for it
> appear.

There actually is an active proposal to modify some definitions of terms 
to make them broader than they originally were (in the area of 
Offer).[1]  These changes are minor semantic changes compared to the two 
possibilities we have seen for schema:area, and should not change the 
meaning of any existing markup. If a term has been defined for a 
specific use in a meaningful way, broadening it may actually be 
detrimental to some existing coded data. Plus, the effort to make such a 
change is not trivial. Although your suggestion is interesting, I'm not 
sure it is practical in the schema environment.

kc
[1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Broaden_Offer_usage

>
> Best,
> Yves
>
>> We have talked here about facets. I think we also may want to look at
>> the linguistic implications of Zipf's Law [1], which shows that the most
>> frequently used terms are the least semantically specific (and are often
>> used in combination with each other, e.g. "solar power"), while highly
>> specific terms are used infrequently and are less reusable. That,
>> combined with the proven success of Dublin Core as a simple but highly
>> flexible vocabulary [2]
>>
>> kc
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf%27s_law
>> [2] http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2013/10/dublin-core-usage-in-lod.html
>>
>> On 11/7/13 11:38 AM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>>> I would counter and say... There is a give and take in generalizing
>>> schema concepts and terms.
>>>
>>> An advantage is that "area" can be easily parsed and reused to collect
>>> large sets of Things and build a containerized view of them, for say
>>> "All Things... Boston"
>>>
>>> A disadvantage is that mapping between same named properties in
>>> schema.org <http://schema.org> currently requires more work for web
>>> developers, it is not extremely hard, but it is more work.  (unless I
>>> have missed a cool RDF view from Dan of all the properties in schema.org
>>> <http://schema.org> aligned by their conceptual "sameAs" meaning ?)
>>>
>>> Conceptually, how is a "broadcastArea" any different than a
>>> "NewspaperCirculationArea" ?  They are not.  The devil is in the
>>> details, but the angel sometimes is in the generalization of details
>>> like, "area".
>>>
>>> My opinion is that we should be making it easier for web developers, and
>>> promoting reuse, over and over and over again.
>>> But long term, I know in reality that reuse might simply be building a
>>> better visualization and mapping of similar property meanings to provide
>>> developers an easy way to parse and apply automated mappings across many
>>> similar properties across all domains in schema.org <http://schema.org>.
>>>    A range or "sameAs".   In my long term view, "broadcastArea" and
>>> "NewspaperCirculationArea" are the same and both stem from the idea of a
>>> range called http://www.schema.org/Place
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch
>>> <mailto:evain@ebu.ch>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      ALthough I can see the point of Karen, I miss the last point from Peter.
>>>
>>>      Actually the TVRadio proposal specialise general concepts (series,
>>>      season, etc.) of schema.org <http://schema.org>. We are therefore
>>>      addressing the point of Karen I believe, unless things have recently
>>>      changed.
>>>
>>>      Jean-Pierre
>>>      ________________________________________
>>>      From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [pfpschneider@gmail.com
>>>      <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>]
>>>      Sent: 07 November 2013 18:56
>>>      To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>;
>>>      public-vocabs@w3.org <mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>
>>>      Subject: Re: status of the TV/Radio proposal
>>>
>>>      I do agree that general-sounding terms should not be used for specific
>>>      notions.  There are lots more such in the proposal, e.g., Series,
>>>      Season,
>>>      Episode, Clip.
>>>
>>>      It appears to me that there are several occurrences of this already in
>>>      schema.org <http://schema.org>, e.g, the use of Abdomen for physical
>>>      medical examination of the
>>>      abdomen, Float for floating point number, and object for the thing
>>>      acted upon
>>>      by an action.
>>>
>>>      A solution, of course, is to use longer identifiers, e.g.,
>>>      areaWithinWhichUsersCanExpectToReachTheBroadcastService.   This can
>>>      get rather
>>>      unwieldy, however.   An interesting compromise is to use something
>>>      like CURIES
>>>      http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/ where a long name is abbreviated in a
>>>      flexible manner.
>>>
>>>      peter
>>>
>>>
>>>      On 11/07/2013 09:16 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>       > Can't help you with your question, but a quick glance turned up this:
>>>       >
>>>       >      Add property 'area', range 'Place'
>>>       >
>>>       >  with description "the area within which users can expect to
>>>      reach the
>>>       > BoradcastService"
>>>       >
>>>       > Lately we've been trying to avoid the addition of general terms (like
>>>       > "area") when they're actually representing something more
>>>      specific (like
>>>       > "area within which users can expect to reach the broadcast
>>>      service"). So
>>>       > before moving this proposal in, we might want to look at it with
>>>      that in mind.
>>>       >
>>>       > I would suggest "broadcastArea" as a better term, but essentially
>>>      I mainly
>>>       > care that the general term "area" not be used for this specific
>>>      concept.
>>>       >
>>>       > kc
>>>
>>>
>>>      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>      **************************************************
>>>      This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>>>      intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>>>      are addressed.
>>>      If you have received this email in error, please notify the system
>>>      manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has
>>>      been swept by the mailgateway
>>>      **************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Thad
>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 12:50:05 UTC