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

Re: schema.org as it could be

From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:35:57 -0700
Message-ID: <52CC3AFD.5020104@mkbergman.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
Hi Martin,

Thanks; I suspected that was how you felt.

On 1/7/2014 9:47 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> Mike:
> You are right. I should have said instead that I consider the design choice to allow text as a value even if a typed entity is expected clearly a feature and not a bug in schema.org, since a Web vocabulary must empower site owners to expose as much data structure and data semantics as they can with the available resources and incentives, and simply raising the bar of consistency does not necessarily improve the state of affairs.

This is the kind of real world perspective that holds so much promise 
for schema.org. We know many webmasters will not adhere to strict 
constraints. I have complete faith that the members of this list can 
find graceful fallback modes when such occur.

Rather than the terminology of features v bugs, however, I think the 
real motivation is what is pragmatic. The trick is to be consistent in 
the face of pragmatic realities.

(I know, easy for me to say. ;) That is why I hope the current major 
contributors to schema.org can take up Peter's offer to encourage his 
contributions. I, plus untold others, will reap the benefits.)

Thanks, Mike

>
> That having said, it is clearly a good thing to achieve as much consistency in the schema.org specification as possible without conflicting with the first goal.
>
> Martin
>
> PS: We will very drop the OWL DL requirement in GoodRelations with the next service release, rendering it OWL Full (and thus practically dropping OWL reasoning support) to allow for exactly such modeling practices.
>
> On Jan 7, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Mike Bergman wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Let's not revisit the tiresome RDF v OWL wars in this forum.
>>
>> I think schema.org should applaud looking at how greater consistency could be brought to its foundations. As a key contributor, I would hope you could help Peter in his interests to do so. Surely, there is common ground here that can help all potential users and consumers of schema.org.
>>
>> Mike
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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, 7 January 2014 17:36:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:20 UTC