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

Re: ItemList examples

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:55:34 -0700
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>
Message-Id: <0205F9EE-76D5-4563-8003-401C336C3B48@greggkellogg.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
On Aug 7, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> 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."

Good point, I'm happy using some alternate term. Markus' suggestion of List works well too.


>> 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 16:56:07 UTC

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