Re: Socialnetworks of a person or organization

Was not referring to sameAs, but the "account" concept... so the "URL of a
reference Web page that unambiguously indicates the item's identity" is a
URL that refers to the same notion or concept as the Thing....no matter if
it is a Social Account, or a YouTube Channel that represents the identity
of the Channel owner.

I like it Dan...BUT

+1 but still think perhaps sameAs could use a slightly better definition ...
 so I would actually change it to this:

"URL of a reference Web page that unambiguously represents the Thing's
identity"


On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:

> eh, the 'sameAs' description actually says: "URL of a reference Web page
> that unambiguously indicates the item's identity."
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Use "account" and then smile.  Besides... your actually saying "account"
>> when you describe it as what you said "unambiguously indicates the
>> item's identity."
>>
>> "unambiguously indicates the item's identity." = "account"
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 April 2014 16:24, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote:
>>> > -1  There's a difference between reference pages *about* the same
>>> entity and pages authored/controlled *by* the same entity.
>>>
>>> Is it a difference we want to fully capture here? I also control my
>>> homepage and various other pages that are not my socialAccount. But
>>> I've just heard another problem which I think also counts against this
>>> proposal: some entities (e.g. news organizations) have dozens of e.g.
>>> Twitter accounts ('sports news', 'music' etc). While it might be
>>> reasonable to point to them all with e.g. socialAccount, it might be
>>> that the best reference page for the entity is something like
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC --- and they'll all end up smushed
>>> together in a confusing way.
>>>
>>> So given Jason's point and this observation I'll back off from the
>>> proposal. So much for thinking-out-loud.
>>>
>>> Maybe the core concept is 'account', which suggests an account holder
>>> and a service provider, and hints at the ability to show (openid
>>> connect etc.) that you're the account holder. Dropping the word
>>> 'social' (which was discussed here a while back) does remove some of
>>> the fuzzyness.
>>>
>>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
>>> <span itemprop="name">Stephen Fry</span>
>>>     (<a itemprop="url" href="http://www.stephenfry.com/">stephenfry.com
>>> </a>,
>>>      <a itemprop="account" href="http://twitter.com/stephenfry
>>> ">twitter</a>,
>>>      <a itemprop="sameAs"
>>> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry">wikipedia</a>)
>>> </div>
>>>  ?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Thad
>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>>
>
>


-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>