W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Buyer / Seller / Provider Re-Design

From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 23:42:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU13MO15Dok_0nC4vcbA1w7PiKpedc91Oj5YO3hBx96K4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, "Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I prefer proposal Beta. It was easy to digest in one read, where proposal
Alpha forced me to go back and forth to see where what
goes. Consistency and simplicity most definitely has my preference.


2014-08-01 22:11 GMT+02:00 Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>:

> I definitely favor Proposal Beta.  It relies less on deprecation of
> existing properties and - more importantly IMO - less on class-specific
> properties.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In this context, "BuyAction > seller" means the "seller" property on the
>> BuyAction type.
>>
>> - Vicki
>>
>>
>> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand the ">" shorthand in the Proposal Alpha listings.
>>>  E.g.:
>>>
>>> 6. Deprecate vendor in favor of BuyAction > seller
>>>
>>> What does "in favor of BuyAction > seller" mean - i.e what does the ">"
>>> represent in this construction?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Jason Johnson (BING) <
>>> jasjoh@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Following up on a thread which went stale back in June, Vicki and Dan @
>>>> Google + myself formalized the prior public discussions into a pair of
>>>> alternative vocabulary re-designs.  We then generated a (hopefully)
>>>> canonical set of use cases to help validate and map those alternatives.  We
>>>> would like to re-start the stale discussion using this more formal proposal
>>>> in the hopes that we can drive consensus ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/File:ProviderSellerVocabularyRe-DesignProposal.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please read through the PDF and …
>>>>
>>>> - provide feedback on the proposed model of exchanges
>>>>
>>>> - provide feedback on the two alternative proposals, ideally favoring
>>>> one more than the other (we can’t decide ourselves)
>>>>
>>>> - review the canonical examples we have generated and share any that we
>>>> are missing – especially if neither alternative vocab addresses them
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We hope to move forward with one of these solutions ASAP and look
>>>> forward to your input!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Jason Johnson*
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 21:43:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:34 UTC