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

Re: ItemList examples

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:09:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7cs4buDUaVOhv0G6r8hRnncj8uYTFCFcNZZssG5AF0Bg@mail.gmail.com>
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

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