Re: schema.org property proposal: socialAccount

I'd say a YouTube would definitely be considered a socialAccount (an
*additional* social account in the context of what you've said).

Which raises a related issue I previously hesitated bringing up, as I'd be
perfectly happy to see "socialAccount" (and do add my +1 here), but - as I
noted more than a year ago [1] - I like the property "onlineAccount" as a
more generic version of what's being discussed here (see also further
comments in that thread).

This would relieve a coder of the burden of what does and does not
constitute a "social" account, as opposed to some other type of account.

We see this sort of fuzziness with schema.org/BlogPosting, which is simply
a flavor of the (vastly more broadly implemented and better recognized)
type Article, and so I think unnecessary.

For example, what if I want to markup something with OpenTable account?  Or
HPI account?  Or Starbucks account?  Or Workopolis account?  Or Github
account?  Or eBay account?  Does simply the act of exposing an account URI
make it "social", even if no sharing is involved?  And what about accounts
that may be used in situations where the URI might not even be publicly
exposed, like in conjunction with a schema.org/Action in Gmail?

Of course one could have SocialAccount (here rendering it as a type) as a
more specific type of OnlineAccount, but I'm not sure how beneficial that
is (and replicates the sort of "BlogPosting" fuzziness I described).

But, again, a really useful property even if it shakes out as socialAccount.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Jan/0024.html


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:

> Since it's been asked to me and I couldn't come up with an answer I
> thought I'd throw it up in here,
> In Organization which has:
> @url to it's webpage,
> @socialAccount to Facebook
> @sameAs to Freebase entry
>
> Which property should be used to point to a Youtube channel of the same
> Organization? Could it possible be considered an @socialAccount?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> ~Richard
>>
>> On 7 Apr 2014, at 06:01, Kevin Polley <kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------
>> >> martin hepp
>> >> e-business & web science research group
>> >> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>> >>
>> >> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
>> >> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>> >> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
>> >> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>> >>         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>> >> skype:   mfhepp
>> >> twitter: mfhepp
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 07 Apr 2014, at 04:25, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1 (since last year!!)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jarno van Driel <
>> jarno@quantumspork.nl>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> But besides the double listing, +1 from me.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> On 6 April 2014 19:12, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de> wrote:
>> >>>> Great that we have this property.
>> >>>> Should I move our old proposal recorded at
>> >>>>
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals#Brainstorming,%20Use%20Cases%20and%20Advance%20Notice
>> >>>> to accepted solutions? This property is part of the current version
>> of
>> >>> the language?
>> >>>
>> >>> Ah I missed that we had a double listing - I'll tidy up the wiki. A
>> >>> lot of people have been asking for this. It's not officially added yet
>> >>> but I'd like to move it along as a simple useful fix...
>> >>>
>> >>> cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> -Thad
>> >>> +ThadGuidry
>> >>> Thad on LinkedIn
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>