- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:55:34 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- 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 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. Gregg >> 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