- From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:37:44 +0200
- To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Cc: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Message-ID: <CADK2AU18UoNtvVOMbWfLsF=t_ammcWHGs5VwRBVkheeVNgRTVA@mail.gmail.com>
To be honest I've always wondered why Blog even ever existed. For me a Blog stands for a more specific type of a Collection. A type schema.org doesn't have (yet). So where did Blog come from then? And it also has this strange @blogPosting property which has no equivalent for Article: CollectionPage Blog blogPosting > BlogPosting name > text blogPosting > BlogPosting name > text [etc] Now I can imagine an MTE like [WebPage Blog] for this but since there are no examples it's unclear if this is a viable option. And if I compare this to let's say a category page on a news site, it becomes even weirder (for me at least it does) CollectionPage [no Collection type] NewsArticle [no property to link the NewsArticle to the CollectionPage/Collection] name > text NewsArticle name > text </div> </div> </body> Taking the liberty to speak freely about this, in my mind, the following would make more sense: 1] Make Blog a sub class of Collection (CreativeWork > Collection > Blog) 2] Add a mainEntity property 3] Add a hasPart property 4] Deprecate the blogPosting property And then we could write: CollectionPage mainEntity > Collection (or Blog) hasPart > NewsArticle (or BlogPosting) name > text hasPart > NewsArticle name > text [etc] As such having a clear and easy way to do this. Or at least, I think so, does it make any sense to any of you? 2014-06-13 12:12 GMT+02:00 Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>: > Blog is a bit of a difficult case because, as you point out, it > encompasses multiple types of online site displaying attributes of > blogishness. > > There is a subset of Blogs that can be categorised as online periodicals > - they fit the criteria to be allocated an issn. > <http://www.issn.org/understanding-the-issn/assignment-rules/the-issn-for-electronic-media/> > > > Taking account of this, at the same time as withdrawing the proposal to > make Blog a sub-type of Periodical, an example of how you would markup a > Blog also as a Periodica > <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works#Example_4_-_A_Blog_also_considered_a_Periodical>l > was added to the proposal. > > ~Richard > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 22:38, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Periodical" is, by contrast, a less fluid concept. With perhaps some > rare exceptions, a journal or magazine only exists as the sum of its > constituent issues, and never as a physical object in itself. > > FWIW I think Blog (the thing that contains blog posts) is an > anachronism, and for schema.org (like anything else where a definition > ultimately rests on the mode of production, rather than attributes of the > thing itself) is not a very useful type. And even less useful, and more > confusing, is BlogPosting, which in every material respect is identical to > Article (which is the only such object of this type - sensibly IMO - that > you'll find in Open Graph). Ironically, most WordPress schema.org > plugins declare a blog post to be an Article. All of this to say that it > makes sense that "blog" and "periodical" don't play well together, as a > blog is such an ill-defined concept. > > > -- *Jarno van Driel* Technical & Semantic SEO Consultant 8 Digits - Digital Marketing Technologies Tel: +31 652 847 608 Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JarnovanDriel Linkedin: linkedin.com/pub/jarno-van-driel/75/470/36a/
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 11:38:11 UTC