Re: Finalizing Schema.org "Roles" design

I like it but was wondering what you think chances are people will abuse it
to express for example:

{
    "@context": "http://schema.org",
     "@type": "Role",
     "roleSubject": {
            "@type": "Product",
            "name": "Explosive tennis balls"
     },
     "roleProperty": {
         "http://schema.org/seller"
    },
    "roleObject": {
        "@type": "Store",
        "name": "Acme inc."
    }
}

as opposed to:

<div vocab="http://schema.org" typeof="Product">
    <span property="name">Explosive tennis balls</span>

    <span property="offers" typeof="Offer">
        <span property="seller" typeof="Store">
            <span property="name">Acme inc.</span>
        </span>
    </span>
</div>

Because it's one of the first things that came to mind when I tried to
imagine how people might use this in ways outside the scope of the
proposal. Now I like the idea of @roleProperty being an URL because it's
easy to use but also wonder if it doesn't run the risk of being used to
create 'triples' in ways that go against already established constructs.

And I also wonder, can @roleProperty be an URL to a property of another
vocab as well?


2014-05-08 18:58 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:

> I've just updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/RolesPattern with
> a link to a 'final draft' PDF of the schema.org "Roles" design. The
> main examples are also lifted into the Wiki page and copied below;
> there's also a link to the original google doc url, for those who
> prefer to comment that way.
>
>
> For a motivating example, when we say that a Person was anactor 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.
>
> The basic approach should be clear from the examples. It is similar to
> classic W3C RDF "reification", in that it takes a
> property/relationship and treats that as a thing (a "Role", in our
> terminology) that can be further described and annotated.
>
> Here is an example sports-related description:
>
> {
>     "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>      "@type": "AmericanFootballRole",
>      "roleSubject": {
>             "@type": "AmericanFootballTeam",
>             "name": "San Francisco 49ers"
>      },
>      "roleProperty": {
>          "http://schema.org/athlete"
>     },
>     "roleObject": {
>         "@type": "Person",
>         "name": "Joe Montana"
>     },
>     "startDate": "1979",
>     "endDate": "1992",
>     "position": "Quarterback"
> }
>
> Here is a movie:
>
> {
>     "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>      "@type": "MovieRole",
>      "roleSubject": {
>             "@type": "Movie",
>             "name": "GhostBusters"
>      },
>      "roleProperty": {
>          "http://schema.org/actor"
>     },
>     "roleObject": {
>         "@type": "Person",
>         "name": "Bill Murray"
>     },
>     "characterName": "Dr. Peter Venkman"
> }
>
>
> This approach differs from the original draft (circulated at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Mar/0111.html),
> based on feedback and discussion here on the earlier approach. This
> time we think we're done, but as always welcome comments and alternate
> perspectives.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>