- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:12:20 +0100
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Cc: Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 27 September 2013 17:00, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > In that case, Dan. > > +1 to getting rid of all your work, and just put 1,000,000 properties under > THING. Done. :) http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:List_of_properties/all comes close... > I still stand firmly, rigidly, on practical use of Schema.org and > sub-types.... and someone does have to absorb the cost, but with someone > bearing the cost, others reap the benefits including the Schema.org > stakeholders, which was the whole initial point of Schema.org...least you > forget. I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the schema hierarchy and property/type associations; just that there are other techniques available that may help publishers understand the most useful/interesting things to say about each type, rather than (as we do now) list all the potentially relevant properties. Dan
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 16:12:48 UTC