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

Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for Schema.org

From: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 17:03:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEiKvUDuXn7jQqfMKAjHnnKzPe0KVm2k+2tZz43BNhaeVCTbgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Jay Myers <jay.myers@bestbuy.com>, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
Could we use the existing extension mechanism instead of inventing a new
one?  Something like add productSpecification that expects
QuantitativeValue and then extend it.  So:

{
  @type: Product
  productSpecification/screenSize : {
    value: 46
    unitCode: "CMT"
  }
}


On Fri May 02 2014 at 9:30:08 AM, Kevin Polley <
kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk> wrote:

> As an early adopter and webmaster myself I would also like to see this
> very useful proposal move forward.
>
> Following the various threads of Martin's proposal has been interesting
> and informative. From my perspective, the benefits of having available a
> generic extension mechanism for properties that helps to overcome current
> limitations is very appealing and I can already feel the potential
> frustration that Aaron describes should property-value pairs only become
> available for Product.
>
> In part this frustration echoes that of some decision makers who discover
> they are unable to expose facts about aspects of their business and their
> products or services that they have identified as important to them and
> their customers. From my seat I see property/value pairs as providing
> solutions, opportunities and benefits that can be improved later once the
> uptake and usage is quantified.
>
> best,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> > I like the direction of this proposal very much:  in general this has the
> > potential to extend the potential expressiveness of schema.org a leap
> > forward with a single step.  A few points on what's been said so far.
> >
> > As Holger Knublauch said I believe we should not mix up a discussion
> about
> > a data model with the current set of syntaxes, and like Martin I think
> > it's
> > important this work with microdata.  Forcing webmasters who want to avail
> > themselves of this mechanism that have otherwise cast their lot with
> > microdata to mix-and-match with RDFa or JSON-LD is an onerous adoption
> > killer, and heaping on syntaxes will certainly ensure an increase in code
> > errors.
> >
> > While the genesis of this idea was product description, I see no reason
> > whatsoever why this should be restricted to Product, Place or any other
> > specific type.  Thad, I believe you first brought this up:  was there
> > something in the Freebase experience informs your opinion on this?  Or a
> > reason from your end Jason?
> >
> > It seems to be that one of the chief benefits of a generic property
> > declaration mechanism is that its, well, generic.  If this were to roll
> > out, webmasters (myself included) will immediately find themselves
> lacking
> > in a very useful property, see a means of adding it, but be frustrated in
> > the attempt by the limitation on applicable types.  And the ready
> > extensibility provided by this makes it conducive to the generation of
> > useful extensions, necessarily lost in the revised proposal limiting
> > additionalProperty's use (literally crossed out).  Given the usefulness
> of
> > this, what's the compelling argument to limit its use?
> >
> > Justin Boyan
> >>Can you give some examples of how this style of data could be used by a
> > search engine or aggregator to drive interesting features? It seems like
> > it's pushing too much work to the consumer side. Every different
> > website/producer will come up with their own different terminology for
> the
> > same attributes, which sort of defeats the purpose of a common
> vocabulary.
> >
> > My only misgiving is along these lines - that by providing for the ad hoc
> > addition of new properties, we're diminishing the value of
> > *shared*vocabulary that multiple data consumers understand.  But I
> > think valuable
> > extensions will end up being broad understood and/or incorporated into
> the
> > core.  And more to the point, data consumers and publishers are already
> > extending schema.org with new properties on a regular basis, as with
> > Google's financialQuote properties or OCLC's exampleOfWork.  Which I
> think
> > is fine, but are such ad hoc methods of adding properties preferable to
> > using this proposed method of exposing property/value pairs?
> >
> > Jay Myers
> >>I'm encouraged to see this proposal move forward -- we have used similar
> > techniques on our RDF/ SPARQL platform to expose deep attribute sets,
> with
> > excellent results that enable discovery and exploration of long tail
> > products. I can provide further details if people are interested. I would
> > imagine that enabling the same functionality in schema.org would open up
> > many possibilities to enrich product search and discovery through the
> > search engines.
> >
> > Great to have your input Jay, and yes, I'd love to see further details!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:47 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <
> > martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Jay:
> >> Thanks for your +1!
> >> I just updated the proposal and now constrain the core property
> >> additionalProperty to Product OR Place.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> On 01 May 2014, at 03:44, Myers, Jay <Jay.Myers@bestbuy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > I am still catching up on all the threads in this discussion, but
> >> wanted
> >> to add my perspective as a publisher of large amount of product data...
> >> >
> >> > I'm encouraged to see this proposal move forward -- we have used
> >> similar
> >> techniques on our RDF/ SPARQL platform to expose deep attribute sets,
> >> with
> >> excellent results that enable discovery and exploration of long tail
> >> products. I can provide further details if people are interested. I
> >> would
> >> imagine that enabling the same functionality in schema.org would open
> up
> >> many possibilities to enrich product search and discovery through the
> >> search engines.
> >> >
> >> > From experience we realized it would take endless numbers of human
> >> hours
> >> to grok, organize, and standardize properties for every product category
> >> --
> >> even our relatively small(ish) catalog consisting of 700K products with
> >> around 1110 product categories. I can also say that no site owner or
> >> developer is going to go through the trouble of mapping their product
> >> data
> >> to an external set of mappings. However, this data has tremendous value
> >> and
> >> I believe Martin's proposal can unearth that, allowing consumption by
> >> machines which should be able to easily synthesize it if need be.
> >> >
> >> > +1 Thad's idea of keeping at the Product level.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > Jay Myers
> >> > Product Manager/ Architect
> >> > bestbuy.com Product Recommendations, Product Ontology Platforms
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > From: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> >> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:16 PM
> >> > To: Mike Bergman
> >> > Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force
> >> > Subject: Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for Schema.org
> >> >
> >> >> Are you saying there are legal restrictions to create mapping files
> >> between industry standards (some of which may be proprietary) and
> >> internal
> >> vocabularies? Are there any restrictions to publicly releasing such
> >> mappings?
> >> >>
> >> >> If these are allowable, then "hosting" the native vocabularies is
> >> immaterial.
> >> >>
> >> >> My understanding of the answer to these two questions is NO.  But, I
> >> only play a lawyer on TV.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I was saying that publishing an OWL vocabulary containing at least
> >> class
> >> and property labels that is directly derived from an existing
> >> classification standard requires a license from the owner of the
> >> intellectual property. That means that unless you can motivate the
> >> standards body to publish a Web ontology version of its classes and
> >> properties, it is very difficult to use that standard for structured
> >> data
> >> on the Web. I am no lawyer and can thus not assess whether collections
> >> of
> >> identifiers alone are subject to IPR, but in general, this is a
> >> non-trivial
> >> issue.
> >> >
> >> > For instance, I have been trying to get legal approval from the UN
> >> from
> >> 2004 - 2007 to publish my OWL variant of www.unspsc.org on the Web, or
> >> for them to host my OWL versions on their server, and eventually gave
> >> up.
> >> >
> >> > For eClass, we developed a proper OWL transformation, but since eClass
> >> lives from membership fees for accessing the full standard, they could
> >> eventually not agree to publishing the OWL version on the Web after the
> >> 5.1
> >> version (for which they had given me permission).
> >> >
> >> > And the story goes on.
> >> >
> >> > With my proposal, you can immediately use the local identifiers for
> >> any
> >> of the properties from eClass, GPC, etc. for exposing product feature
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Best
> >> > Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 17:04:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:31 UTC