Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for

On 05/04/2014 12:57 PM, Guha wrote:
> -1

-1 to what part of Markus's comment?   That there are large parts of whose use to data providers is unsubstantiated?  That it would be 
easier to convince data providers to mark up in JSON?  That there are no 
significant benefits in Martin's approach beyond what would be provided by 
some well-crafted JSON?

> The problem addressed by Martin Hepp is something
> <> applications at Google face. So, yes, it will find use.

Which part of Martin's approach addresses problems encountered within applications in Google?  The ability to overcome some syntactic 
limitations of microdata?  A new way to extend the ontology using a 
reserved property and pairs?  The 
value/minValue/maxValue/-/,/valueReference/unitCode/unitText method for 
presenting unions of values and intervals and other stuff?

> guha


> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> < <>> wrote:
>     +1
>     On 05/04/2014 01:28 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>         [...]
>         There are already hundreds of concepts defined by
>         <>,
>         yet only a very small fraction of them results in concrete benefits
>         for the
>         data *provider*. What's the motivation for them to use this approach?
>         I bet
>         it would be much easier to convince them to, e.g., publish their data as
>         plain-old JSON instead (not JSON-LD). That's extremely cheap and every
>         programmer is familiar with it. You also get more or less the same
>         benefits,
>         i.e., structured data that you claim is easier to interpret than
>         completely
>         unstructured, natural language. So why not just embed JSON blocks. In most
>         programming//templating languages that wouldn't require more than one line
>         of code.
>         --
>         Markus Lanthaler
>         @markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 5 May 2014 00:01:48 UTC