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

Re: Draft schema for QA sites

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:04:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-O77OKyRoFQqms+L=E_uphbmt8YN9KPsDVRYTtS14RuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Shawn Simister <simister@google.com>, elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
We are close enough to covering FAQs that I would like us to.

What are we missing?


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> 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
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-tags-except-xhtml-self-contained-tags
> but it would just confuse people; better suggestions welcomed!
> ----
> QA Sites
> circulated 22 Jan
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0107.html
> Summary of discussion/feedback collecting editorial TODOs for Dan and
> Stephane.
> 1st cut at RDFS,
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/7befd20efb66/schema.org/ext/QA.html
> 1. Martin Hepp,
> wording suggestions
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0111.html
> Karen Coyle suggests original wording also ok, except
> 'questions'->'question'
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0112.html
> 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,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0113.html
> 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 http://schema.org/comment of http://schema.org/Comment.
> 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
> instead?"
> This seems volatile info that might be of limited use for search. In a
> sense many schema.org 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="http://schema.org/suggestedAnswer">
> <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
> site.</span>
> <span>Domain: <a property="http://schema.org/domain"
> href="http://schema.org/Question">Question</a></span>
> <span>Range: <a property="http://schema.org/range"
> href="http://schema.org/Answer">Answer</a></span>
>     <link property="rdfs:subPropertyOf" href="http://schema.org/answer" />
> <span>Source:  <a property="dc:source"
> href="http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/QASchemaResearch
> ">QASchemaResearch</a></span>
> </div>
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0115.html
> 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 ☮
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0155.html
> 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
> @rev="suggestedAnswer".
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0152.html
> "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,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0153.html
> As is elf Pavlik,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0154.html
> 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 19:05:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:21 UTC