- From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:42:03 -0400
- To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:14:10PM +1000, Renato Iannella wrote: > >Thanks for that Dan...some feedback... > >"schema.org/Offer" include "rights", "service" and is probably missing >"product"....but I wonder if it is better to define Offer more on the >process rather than the list of things that can be offered. We seem to >use the generic "item" for anything...so perhaps a cleaner definition >could be: "To present an item for consideration". Right. It took me a while to figure out why "item" seems to have special meaning in the schema.org docs, but I eventually realized that the usage of "item" is more generally tied to the semantic types being marked up (which explains the microdata itemtype / itemscope property names and the references to "item" in the RDFa spec, for example). For those coming to schema.org without that broader context, then, I'm concerned that "item" is going to strongly suggest material goods rather than the more inclusive products-and-services. (But perhaps that's based too much on my own thick-headedness!) >BTW, it would be good if schema.org allowed definitions to standalone, >and not force the "for example" text into the definitions (not good >11179 ;-) and added a notes metadata attribute... I, too, admit to feeling a little discomfort about the heavy reliance on examples in the definitions. It might be interesting to put together an experimental draft that separates the inline examples from the definitions, at least for a subset of the vocabulary: I suspect that it would end up pushing us to strengthen the definitions in the long run. If the brief examples were kept adjacent to the definitions in the docs, then I think it would assuage Thad's concern that the examples are extremely useful (a concern I also share). But in the short-term, I would be happy if we could just clarify the intended usage for what already exists in the vocabulary using the current structure.
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 14:42:38 UTC