- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:09:49 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 7 August 2014 04:42, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:49 PM, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote: > > I suppose the backward-compatible way to do it would be to: > > Create a new type (Collection?) > Change the domain of the structural properties of ItemList to Collection > Make ItemList inherit from Collection as well as CreativeWork > > That leaves ItemLiist as the editorial thing, so all existing markup would > still be semantically unchanged. That's where I ended up - but it feels backwards. Note that "Collection" is being proposed by the bibextend folk for the editorial thing: http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#New_Type:_Collection "This is a collection in the broadest and simplest possible sense. It is a set of CreativeWorks or Things. The things in a collection may be thought of as its "parts", even though the membership could be ephemeral. The defining of a Collection, by bringing, identifying, or linking together a collection of things, is considered to be a creative act, hence a Collection is a more specific type of CreativeWork." > I think Collection makes a lot of sense. To me, ItemList sounds like a > curated list, whereas Collection sounds like a basic grouping. My intuitions run the other way. Collection slightly emphasises the act of bringing together, ItemList sounds like a made up data structure word. But I could live with either option - I think it's clear that divorcing the list aspect from the curation aspect is worthwhile and none of these choices are ever ideal. Dan > I would still like to see some clarification on referenced Collections, and > a means of paginating Collections. Hydra does this by adding > first/last/next/prev properties in addition to totalItems. > > Some Collections could contain thousands of items (UserLikes, Comments, > Events, ...), so having a way to split these between different resources > would be useful. > > +1 to making ItemList a subclass of both Collection and CreativeWork. > > Having Collection be a subtype of Role also makes sense > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jun/0279.html). > > Gregg > > -jason > > On Wed Aug 06 2014 at 6:18:10 PM Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> I had a look into this last time you mentioned it. I agree that there >>> is a need for something that's a pure data structure, and something >>> else that carries the CreativeWork aspect. Are we OK with changing the >>> meaning of ItemList out from under the feet of existing publishers? As >>> far as I could see it was mostly used with Thing-properties, but there >>> were some sites using 'about', 'author' properties. >>> >>> I'm quite liking the Role-like idiom. If we're going to use it for >>> Role, it probably makes sense here too. >> >> >> I'm for creating two types: a basic ItemList separate from CreativeWork >> and an EditedList that inherits from both CreativeWork and the basic >> ItemList. Otherwise, we are going to keep creating strange semantics to >> preserve the existing semantics. >> >> - Vicki >> >> >> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com >> > >
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 08:10:16 UTC