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

Re: Draft schema for QA sites

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:30:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7OpN=vVZUM1=jAFzaDS-wTtWto2q=wuSgGtnsMLr0M+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.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>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 29 January 2014 19:24, St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> 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
> I think we should clarify who has accepted this answer as best answer. in
> the case of StackOverflow, the user who posted the question can pick the
> best answer (in this opinion), but the community might have agreed to accept
> a different response as best answer (based on the votes). If acceptedAnswer
> is in the one accepted by the original question author, this should be
> reflected in the rdfs:comment. How about "The answer that the author of the
> question has been accepted as best, typically on a Question/Answer site." ?
> I don't think there is currently a property for the other case, the
> "community accepted answer", and that might be fine since this can be
> inferred by the consumer by looking at the most up voted answer.

Good point. However I'm going to suggest we do nothing for now.


a) we can't abstract *everything* from pages into their schema.org
representation. Well, we could, but there are lots of reasons that
might not be a great thing to do. Learning more about who exactly said
and did what is a good reason to go explore the site's main content.
QA, FAQ etc sites support a variety of social models that might be
hard to summarise.

b) it's easier to add things than to change things. Let's wait to see
what kind of sites adopt the basic markup, then iterate and refine


Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 19:30:29 UTC

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