Re: schema.org Roles design

It does play the same role.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are subtle
differences in the respective specs, though.

On Wed Mar 26 2014 at 1:45:02 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
wrote:

> Quick question: is '@id' the same in JSON-LD as 'itemid' is in Microdata?
> Because I find it difficult to comprehend the functionality of '@id'.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>
>> See comments inline
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > At schema.org we have been working on a design for describing roles
>>> > and contributions.
>>> >
>>> > I've just posted a discussion draft in the WebSchemas wiki. Please
>>> take a look:
>>> >
>>> > Roles in Schema.org
>>> > https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/RolesPattern ->
>>> > https://www.w3.org/wiki/images/b/b5/RolesinSchema.org.pdf
>>>
>>> Some comments on the draft:
>>>
>>> I think this is a really useful abstraction, but I do see some room for
>>> improvement.
>>>
>>> I think adding date ranges to the role is conflating the role with an
>>> event. Better to say that the Joe Montana is the quarterback during the
>>> 1992 season of the 49ers by defining an event for the 1992 season. Jason
>>> and Jean-Pierre made similar points, and I think that models better.
>>>
>>> One could look at anything with a temporal extent (including a
>> proposition) as an event. It is not clear that buys us much. In fact,
>> experience with Cyc shows that this can be confusing.  If you want, you can
>> look at Role as a subclass of Event.
>>
>>
>>> A Role seems to use different properties to describe the kind of role
>>> ("position", "characterName", "graduationYear"). It might be possible to
>>> simply subclass Role so that it's known the kind of role that's being
>>> played, but a single property which defines this (ideally an entity, but
>>> allowing a string) would be less ambiguous and would avoid falling into the
>>> trap of not having considered all of the kinds of roles played. Similarly,
>>> settling on a single property to reference the "agent" performing the role
>>> might be better than using arbitrary properties from different classes
>>> depending on where the role is referenced from. (In fact, you reference the
>>> same role from different entities, so context can't really be used either).
>>>
>>> We don't want to be at either extreme. We don't want overly general
>> slots like 'agent, 'performer' and 'object' as the only slots. Similarly,
>> we don't want slots like quarterback, runningback, etc.
>>
>>
>>> The schema for hasRole has domainIncludes and rangeIncludes reversed.
>>>
>>> In the appendix, you site the use of @context as a (temporary) means of
>>> describing the range of hasRole to be an entity, not a literal. You could
>>> eliminate the context by using an expanded form:
>>>
>>> {
>>>   "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>>>   "@type": "Movie",
>>>   "name": "Ghostbusters", "hasRole": {
>>>     "@type": "MovieRole",
>>>     "@id": "movierole_678",
>>>     "characterName": "Dr. Peter Venkman",
>>>     "actor": {
>>>       "@type": "Person",
>>>       "name": "Bill Murray",
>>>       "hasRole": {"@id": "movierole_678"}
>>>     }
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> But, I prefer to use a different property, as "hasRole" does not seem to
>>> me to be symetric. Better than defining inverses of every property is to
>>> define an inverse alias in the (forthcoming) context. For example:
>>>
>>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>
>>> {
>>>   "@context": ["http://schema.org/", {
>>>     "inRole": {"@reverse": "hasRole"}
>>>   },
>>>   "@type": "Movie",
>>>   "name": "Ghostbusters", "hasRole": {
>>>     "@type": "MovieRole",
>>>     "@id": "movierole_678",
>>>     "characterName": "Dr. Peter Venkman",
>>>     "actor": {
>>>       "@type": "Person",
>>>       "name": "Bill Murray",
>>>       "inRole": "movierole_678"
>>>     }
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> This uses the same property "hasRole", but defines a reverse term which
>>> will expand, flatten or transform to RDF using the inRole property.
>>>
>>> Great to see progress on this issue!
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> >> From the wiki, "For example, when we say that a Person was an actor in
>>> > a Movie, we might want to mention their characterName too. When we say
>>> > that a SportsTeam has a Person as an athlete, we might want to mention
>>> > the position that they play, or the time period in which they
>>> > fulfilled that role.".
>>> >
>>> > I freely acknowledge that PDF isn't the best way to share markup/code
>>> > snippets and will copy those into Wiki. However we wanted to get the
>>> > draft out asap.
>>> >
>>> > Here's a quick example extracted from the doc, expressed in JSON-LD.
>>> > We want to elaborate on a basic description, so here is the mostasic
>>> > version first, followed by the Role-based richer version:
>>> >
>>> > {
>>> > "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>>> > "@type": "AmericanFootballTeam",
>>> > "name": "San Francisco 49ers",
>>> > "athlete": {
>>> >   "@type": "Person",
>>> >   "name": "Joe Montana"
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > Extended version using Role:
>>> >
>>> > {
>>> >   "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>>> >   "@type": "AmericanFootballTeam",
>>> >   "name": "San Francisco 49ers",
>>> >   "hasRole": {
>>> >       "@type": "AmericanFootballRole",
>>> >       "@id": "role321",
>>> >       "startDate": "1979",
>>> >       "endDate": "1992",
>>> >       "position": "Quarterback",
>>> >       "athlete": {
>>> >               "@type": "Person",
>>> >               "name": "Joe Montana",
>>> >               "hasRole": "role321"
>>> >       }
>>> >   }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > Effectively we interpose a new node in the graph. Instead of
>>> >
>>> > SanFrancisco49ers ---athlete---> JoeMontana
>>> >
>>> > We have
>>> >
>>> > SanFrancisco49ers --hasRole---> [role321] --athlete---> JoeMontana.
>>> >
>>> > There are a few nearby designs that may be worth discussion here. If
>>> > we wanted to make things simpler for publishers, we could remove the
>>> > hasRole reference from JoeMontana back to the Role. However this also
>>> > makes it harder for consuming applications to understand Role-based
>>> > modeling across all domains. Another approach would be to use
>>> > different property names for relating the 'subject' and 'predicate'
>>> > entities. The appendix in the full proposal document elaborates on
>>> > some of these options. I should also note for those of you using the
>>> > JSON-LD playground or other generic tools that the above markup needs
>>> > some tweaks, since schema.org doesn't yet publish a @context file.
>>> > Again, the document has details of a workaround.
>>> >
>>> > Please take a look. This is quite an important spec for schema.org as
>>> > it has impact across all domains, so it is important to find the right
>>> > balance between ease of adoption for publishers, expressivity, ease of
>>> > processing etc.
>>> >
>>> > cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Dan
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>