- From: Alf Eaton <eaton.alf@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:15:15 +0100
- To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJVrAaRsS_OYBJXBgs3v1cWVpfWiv2HBsiq2Xk_b2XFpqx1psw@mail.gmail.com>
On 16 June 2014 15:03, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:50:14PM +0100, Alf Eaton wrote: > >> On 16 June 2014 14:31, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:04:02PM +0100, Alf Eaton wrote: >>> >>> On 16 June 2014 13:57, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 01:35:18PM +0100, Alf Eaton wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In a discussion thread on this list a few months ago[1], there was >>>>> >>>>>> suggestion of adding a "score" property to Question/Answer/Comment >>>>>> (Q&A) >>>>>> classes, alongside the existing "upvoteCount" and "downvoteCount" >>>>>> properties. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I'm currently marking up Q&A pages that display only a score (and >>>>>> not >>>>>> counts of individual upvotes and downvotes) [2], this would be a >>>>>> useful >>>>>> property. Did the discussion ever turn into a full proposal? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Alf >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Feb/ >>>>>> 0088.html >>>>>> [2] https://peerj.com/questions/31-what-does-open-access-mean-to-you/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the example from peerj, the "score" that is being displayed has >>>>> nothing to do with upvotes or downvotes on the particular answer to a >>>>> question; it's the number of contributions that the individual offering >>>>> that answer has made to the site as a whole (the sum of activity such >>>>> as >>>>> authored articles, edited articles, reviews, answers, questions, and >>>>> replies contributed). >>>>> >>>>> So I think "score" would be misleading if added to >>>>> Question/Answer/Comment for this particular example, because it is >>>>> attached to the person's account for that service. It seems more >>>>> appropriate for a social account property. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The "scores" that I was referring to on the linked page are the numbers >>>> between the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" icons, which are the scores >>>> that >>>> users have given to each question or answer, calculated as upvoteCount >>>> minus downvoteCount. This is the same as is displayed for questions and >>>> answers on StackOverflow, for example. I think you were probably looking >>>> at >>>> the numbers next to the authors of each question/answer, which are >>>> something else. >>>> >>>> >>> Oh, my apologies. Firefox blocks cross domain webfonts, so the >>> thumbs-up/thumbs-down appear as generic unicode boxes on that site and >>> obscured what I was supposed to be looking at :/ >>> >>> >> My apologies for that - I'll try to get that fixed. Here's a better >> example, on StackOverflow: >> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1960473/unique-values-in-an-array >> >> >> Would there be a significant semantic difference for sites like this in >>> just treating the single score "X" as "X" upVotes, always with 0 >>> downVotes? >>> >> >> >> It does feel like there's a difference, although the score could just be >> described as "net upvotes" in this case (in other cases, the score might >> be >> calculated differently). >> >> It partly depends on whether the data consumer is using "upvoteCount" as a >> measure of activity: an "upvoteCount" of "2" would imply little activity, >> when the item could actually have had 50 upvotes and 48 downvotes. It >> would >> also lead to the possibility of an item having "-10" upvotes, for example. >> > > Point taken. > > > Is it worth overloading "upvoteCount" to the point where it loses its >> meaning, for the sake of not adding another property to the schema? >> > > My bias is towards conservatism and trying to explore the possibilities > of using the existing vocabulary before adding yet another property. > > The alternative seems to be to follow Martin Hepp's very sensible > suggestion of using the existing Review / Rating branch of the schema > vocabulary (with Rating's single ratingValue property) in this instance, > in which case you would have a very compact review / Review / > reviewRating / Rating / ratingValue nested set of properties and types > for the single score for each answer/comment/question. Pretty verbose I > guess. > > Optionally, one could simply expand the domain of ratingValue to include > Answer/Comment/Question, thereby still avoiding the addition of an > entirely new property, yet offering the score that you're looking for > along side the upvoteCount / downvoteCount properties. A "score" calculated from combined up/down votes does seem conceptually similar to a "quality" rating. It's more of an AggregateRating than a singular Rating, though (in which case "upvoteCount" and "downvoteCount" could be viewed as "positiveRatingCount" and "negativeRatingCount"). It differs from AggregateRating mostly in that the final score is a sum of all the votes rather than an average. I think it still seems different enough from either of the existing "rating" classes, as currently attached to reviews, that it would be a bit of a squeeze to re-use them. Alf
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 14:16:03 UTC