Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for

Francois, Martin,

Is that the intended use for propertyID ?  I did not get the feeling from
looking through the proposal that it could also be used to hold Kinds,
Types, Contexts, etc.  I instead got the feeling that it was to be used for
identifiers... ah looking at it again... now I see... so ... what is the
eClass representation of this in reality ?

<meta itemprop="propertyID" content="eclass81:02-AAM226">

is that content equate to some Kind or Type ? ... does propertyID
always infer the idea of a Kind or Type ?  if not, ... how does one
infer a Kind or Type in Martins proposal ?

I have a box...that has  "some KIND of Feature" ... how do I express
that Feature KIND...that many of my boxes would share ?  Is that what
propertyID would be used for ?

(I must be really tired today)

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Francois-Paul Servant <> wrote:

> Thad,
> I've been very fast in my explanation.
> Whatever the interpretation of PropertyValue, we can write:
> foo:YourBook schema:additionalProperty x:MartinHeppAsPV.
> x:MartinHeppAsPV a PropertyValue;
> propertyID author;
> value x:MartinHeppThePerson
> but x:MartinHeppThePerson and x:MartinHeppAsPV are not the same thing.
> Must I say that I strongly support Martin's proposal direction? My only
> concern is the following: it must allow to use a URI for the object of the
> property (the "feature") when we have one, (and minting one should be
> encouraged otherwise), because this allows to publish data as they are, and
> to lift them later.
> Best,
> fps
> Le 1 mai 2014 à 16:53, Thad Guidry <> a écrit :
> Francois,
> That's because this:
> foo:YourBook schema:additionalProperty x:MartinHeppThePerson.
> is missing the sub-property for the right context... I.E.  it's missing
> the word "author"
> 1. perhaps that missing context needs to somehow use "additionalType" ?
> 2. maybe context should just be the "scope" of the Property-Value pairing?
> In .. Contexts and Kinds are referred to and modeled actually
> as Types. ..(well, that's how we CURRENTLY have designed).
> But Martin's proposal presents a slight variation on the CURRENT
> Design...that we need, but that we need to get right...and it can be a work
> in progress starting at Products & Places. Agreed.
> Martin,
>  The new proposal looks fine to me... just wondering about how to handle
> missing Context, as Francois is hitting upon...would that be through the
> use of "additionalType" or "scope" or something else ?  Can you mock up an
> example for his Sunroof case ?
> --
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <>
> Thad on LinkedIn <>

+ThadGuidry <>
Thad on LinkedIn <>

Received on Thursday, 1 May 2014 16:22:57 UTC