- From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:17:29 +1100
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Matthias Tylkowski <matthias@binarypark.org>, SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I am suddenly aware of the need for clarity in this area for the benefit of accessibility - I suggest we encourage Chaals to think about it .... Liddy On 05/02/2014, at 5:26 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Dear Dan, all: > In general, I think we should ask the Dublin Core / library meta- > data groups for a recommendation, because they will surely have > thought about text properties for resources before. I can only judge > it from the product perspective. There, I think we need > > name - The name of an item > description - A textual description > > It should ideally come with two sub-properties > > descriptionLong - A long textual description (e.g. several paragraphs) > descriptionShort - A short textual description (like a teaser, > abstract, or summary) > > For http://schema.org/Organization, we also have > > legalName - The official name of the organization, e.g. the > registered company name. > > Should the requirements for representing variants of textual > descriptions be very diverse across domains, I suggest to rather use > a type like http://schema.org/TextualDescription with the properties > > typeOfDescription - The type of the textual description (like > abstract, long description, teaser) > description - The description as text > > and change the range of description to Text OR TextualDescription. > > This is of course just a raw sketch and requires more elaboration > and feedback from stakeholders. > > Martin > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Dan Scott wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org >> > wrote: >> >> On Feb 3, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Dan Scott wrote: >>> >>> I think it makes a lot of sense to try and distill some best >>> practices here, and hopefully reflect those into the >>> documentation. Let's take a concert ticket as an example, which >>> would probably be a multi-typed "schema:Product >>> schema:MusicEvent" (and please correct me on any of these >>> assumptions!) >>> >>> - name of the item >>> >>> Assuming we're using schema:name here, are we talking about the >>> name of the MusicEvent or the name of the Product? (That is, "Katy >>> Perry's Prismatic World Tour 2014" or "Ticket for Katy Perry's >>> Prismatic World Tour 2014"). I'm guessing that in the case of a >>> multi-typed Product it would be the latter. >>> >>> - title / headline >>> >> >> I think that for multi-typed entity you can only have the same name >> for the different roles of the object. A "convention" that relies >> on details of the syntactical representation is likely to break in >> a multi-syntax environment with RDFa, Microdata, and JSON-LD on the >> table. >> >> If one wants to model different names for multiple roles of the >> same entity, I would define them as two entities and link them via >> sameAs. Then you have stated equivalence of the entities while you >> are still able to properly represent differing values for the same >> property. >> >> This does of course not work if you use a reasoner that >> consolidates the facts from multiple representations of the same >> entity. But OWL-style reasoning is, IMO, not very relevant in >> processing schema.org data, at least as of today (and sameAs in >> schema.org is not formally equivalent to owl:sameAs anyway). >> >> >> Agreed on all points; thanks, Martin, as always, for the clarity >> and thoughtfulness of your reply! >> >> One of my goals in putting together a concrete example was to try >> and tease out the intended difference between the "name of the >> item" and the "title / headline" generic properties you had put >> forward (which is also relevant to the initial subject of this >> thread). Over in GoodRelations, you have gr:name as equivalent to >> dc:title, so there seems to be no meaningful difference there. Can >> you provide a little more insight into how you think those >> properties should be differentiated in schema.org? >> >> Thanks, >> Dan > > -------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp > twitter: mfhepp > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > ================================================================= > * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 20:18:21 UTC