Re: VideoGame proposal

Hi Aaraon:

On 15 May 2014, at 21:24, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:

> While I understand the rationale behind using productontology.org URIs I come down squarely against relying upon them in any situation where the class and/or properties in question are likely to be widely used by a large number of webmasters.  I feel confident in saying that potential benefits of employing productontology.org URIs for something like the proposed platform property will ever remain potential because hardly anyone will employ it.  schema.org's better-than-anticipated success has been predicated not only because it's easy to employ, but on the fact that it's self-contained.  IMO, every time we punt to an external vocabulary we're shooting ourselves in the foot:  I can't stress this enough (and I welcome Martin Hepp's input on this, both because I know he's had something to say about this recently in the context of his generic property/value pair proposal and, of course, because of his experience with productontology.org).
My point on mechanisms for externalizing or deferring consensus is as follows:

1. When there exists consensus in an external standard, it is better to refer to that standard than to incorporate it into schema.org - e.g. currency codes, GPC classes, most enumerations.

2. When site owners are not able to easily link their data to a more standardized representation, it is better to allow them publishing as much "lightweight" semantics as possible than making it too costly for them to publish any data.

Video game is definitely a class that should be in schema.org, whereas for http://www.productontology.org/doc/Action_role-playing_game, I think an external mechanism is a better place.

Martin

Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 08:23:23 UTC