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

Re: revisiting 'position', 'episodeNumber', 'seasonNumber' modeling and Periodicals

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:27:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFo_wNMNE1=kG_LjHqi9BGqgRetKwdU5E2kf4kJsCZAW8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, David Marland <david.marland@bbc.co.uk>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Richard Wallis <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
On 12 August 2014 16:19, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's putting quite a burden on the client.
> Big clients, such as those that can be produced by Google and Yahoo, might
> have access to sufficient information to handle situations where data
> routinely does not match the schema.  However, small and medium clients are
> going to be in a much worse situation.  How are they to proceed?

It's important that this data is widely usable, and as clear as
possible. In this particular case, the suggestion is that publishers
can exploit JSON-LD and RDFa for explicit per-item datatyping. Looking
at the deployment experience with the TV/Radio data, it seems that
publishers have not taken up the model of using 'episodeNumber' and
'position' together (with the latter handling non-numeric strings).

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 15:28:03 UTC

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