- From: David Deering <david@touchpointdigital.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 20:19:34 -0500
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53434EA6.4060103@touchpointdigital.net>
I personally like the idea of adding socialAccount and onlineAccount properties and types, or even possibly socialProfile or onlineProfile if the word "profile" better defines the particular type of accounts. David Deering On 4/7/2014 7:45 PM, Thad Guidry wrote: > Google+ User Id along with specific Branding for channel content are > part of the YouTube API. > https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/docs/channels#resource > > We know that advertisers use Social Accounts to "communicate" with > users in a slightly different way than their Traditional avenues of > advertising and engagement. > > Bluntly, not all onlineAccount's are socialAccounts. > > I would define socialAccount as so: > > "An online account or presence (not email) where users or consumers > can actively communicate with another user or organization through > online social interaction". > > I would define onlineAccount as so: > > "An account used to access or restrict online services" > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com > <mailto:aaranged@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 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 > <http://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 <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote: > > +1 > > ~Richard > > On 7 Apr 2014, at 06:01, Kevin Polley > <kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk > <mailto: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 <mailto:martin.hepp@unibw.de> > >> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217> > >> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620> > >> 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 <mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (since last year!!) > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jarno van Driel > <jarno@quantumspork.nl <mailto: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 <mailto:danbri@google.com>> wrote: > >>> On 6 April 2014 19:12, Adrian Giurca > <giurca@tu-cottbus.de <mailto: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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -Thad > +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> > Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 01:20:02 UTC