Re: Draft schema for QA sites

I've read through this thread a couple times, and made a pass at
suggesting resolutions to the various issues. I'll respond in one big
mail (which I might regret). I think we're getting close. I think
basically we need more markup examples, and a decision about how much
we try to cover FAQs. --Dan

p.s for examples I'd love to use
but it would just confuse people; better suggestions welcomed!


QA Sites

circulated 22 Jan

Summary of discussion/feedback collecting editorial TODOs for Dan and Stephane.

1st cut at RDFS,

1. Martin Hepp,
wording suggestions
Karen Coyle suggests original wording also ok, except 'questions'->'question'
Also 'I generally agree with Martin's "cosmetics" ' from Markus, below.

TODO: write 'question' instead of 'questions' in several places.
TODO: [optionally] tweak some of the wording in the direction Martin suggests

2. Markus Lanthaler,

a) "commentCount's domain should be CreativeWork"
Agreed. Lots of things have comments.

I (Dan) suggest it is also long overdue to add an additional expected
type to of
TODO: add expected type of 'Comment' to 'comment' property.
(and yes, we have an issue with types and properties having similar names)

b) " - I'm a bit worried about viewCount.. is that really needed on
Question?  What about moving it to WebPage instead if really needed?"

I'd be ok with postponing this property (possibly forever), pending
evidence that multiple sites are publishing such info usefully.

c) "Do we really need lastEditor? What about using CreativeWork's editor

This seems volatile info that might be of limited use for search. In a
sense many properties could have "last-" prepended to them.
So I'd be fine with justing using "editor".
Any objections to:
[TODO] drop 'lastEdtitor', add an 'editor' example re-using existing property.

d)  "Which property is used to connect a question to its answers? AFAICT
there's none.   What about introducing answer"

Following the subsequent discussion, I think we have rough consensus
that it is worthwhile adding "answer"; but let's avoid adding to our
pile of properties and types that have almost identical names, so
"suggestedAnswer". I suggest this:

<div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="">
<span class="h" property="rdfs:label">suggestedAnswer</span>
<span property="rdfs:comment">An answer (possibly one of several,
possibly incorrect) to a Question, e.g. on a Question/Answer
<span>Domain: <a property=""
<span>Range: <a property=""

    <link property="rdfs:subPropertyOf" href="" />
<span>Source:  <a property="dc:source"

e) more wordsmithing for accepted answer

"The answer that has been accepted as the best one" etc

Currently we have

<span property="rdfs:comment">The answer the owner of the original
question has accepted as best answer.</span>

I suggest "The answer that has been accepted as best, typically on a
Question/Answer site."
TODO: finalise acceptedAnswer

3. Thad Guidry

Requests that we make clear that an answer is just an opinion, not
necessarily the truth.

Hopefully the suggestedAnswer text above addresses this. We might add
some obviously false answer example too.

TODO: solicit example markup for Question and/or Answer. Any suggestions?

4. ☮ elf Pavlik ☮

Suggests that it is an important use case for an Answer to be able to
say independently which Question(s) it is a suggestedAnswer for.

Dan: Agreed. Technically a property named in the alternate direction
is not needed for this, but in Microdata this could make things
easier. For now I suggest we make an RDFa 1.1 example and show
But assuming each Question and Answer even as part of page have URIs
we should be able to show this in slightly ugly Microdata too.

TODO: show example with a page with an Answer in it, responding to a
Question on another site.

5. Shawn Simister

"Would this be the right schema for marking up an FAQ page on a static
website? Every question would have a single accepted answer. However, it
doesn't quite fit the description of "a user is seeking an answer from a
community of experts" since the questions and answers are all written by
the owner of the website."

Martin supportive,
As is elf Pavlik,

Dan: Tricky, I'd suggest it kinda-sorta-fits, but we should bear this
in mind for future improvements. Can anyone suggest small wording
changes that would make FAQs fit better, without turning the whole
thing into bland/meaningless definitions?

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 17:55:14 UTC