- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 21:22:33 +0200
- To: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, "kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk" <kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk>, Jay Myers <jay.myers@bestbuy.com>, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Dear all: Apologies for the slight delay in addressing of your recent comments. I will now adressing them sequentially and then write a separate, longer wrap-up email that summarizes the state of the discussion. Martin On 02 May 2014, at 20:27, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > On May 2, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2 May 2014 18:38, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com> wrote: >>> Fine, but I think there's an aspect of that mechanism that would be a shame >>> to drop, which is that it had some semantic scoping. >>> >>> I think it's a bad idea to have a completely generic bailout mechanism like >>> this. However, I have no issue with more localized bailouts for things like >>> product specifications or sports statistics that do have common >>> characteristics but a lot of variety and uniqueness. You at least have some >>> hope of being able to do something useful with that data. Otherwise, >>> there's little value over a bag of words. >> >> Yeah, I share the concern about having unscoped bundles of fields that >> could mean anything. >> >> I'm not a believe in the slash-based extension, at least in this case. >> It's best used for super-properties, i.e. where the extended form >> implies the short form: >> >> Does >> { >> @type: Product, >> productSpecification/screenSize : { >> value: 46 >> unitCode: "CMT" >> } >> } >> >> imply >> >> { @type: Product, productSpecification: "46"} ? >> >> This would seem like an overstretch. 46 could be the number of >> previous owners, without the qualifying info. Whereas >> http://schema.org/actor/lead would 'dumb down' nicely to plain old >> '/actor'. >> >> For the kind of product data Martin's talking about here, I wonder >> whether it might be more fruitful to use something like a CSV tabular >> form, associated as a http://schema.org/Dataset and use annotations on >> the table structure, along lines we're spec'ing in the W3C CSV on the >> Web group - http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-csvw-ucr-20140327/ >> https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Main_Page > > +1, although that still begs the question of what the property space is. > > Gregg > >> Dan >> >
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 19:23:00 UTC