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

Re: Blog - was: VideoGame proposal

From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:37:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU18UoNtvVOMbWfLsF=t_ammcWHGs5VwRBVkheeVNgRTVA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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:
        blogPosting > BlogPosting
            name > text
        blogPosting > BlogPosting
            name > text

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)
    [no Collection type]
        NewsArticle [no property to link the NewsArticle to the
            name > text
            name > text

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:
    mainEntity > Collection (or Blog)
        hasPart > NewsArticle (or BlogPosting)
            name > text
        hasPart > NewsArticle
            name > text

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:32 UTC