- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:38:24 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 05/16/2014 04:10 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > [...] > > I think there's a difference of perspective here. For schema.org at > least, it is perfectly fine to have a named subtype to indicate that > some but not all CreativeWorks are EmailMessages, without requiring > there to be distinguishing machine-friendly attributes for the > subtype. So we're happy with it as-is currently. Is there some > specific application this this situation breaks? > > Dan > Well, I don't see how the mere addition of a new subtype could break any reasonable application, so if this is the bar, then there is no problem. However, I do not believe that the current situation is very good here. If content providers are to use this new class effectively they will want to associate information with emails, and the properties from CreativeWork do not seem to be adequate. For example, how is one to add to and cc information, and keep them straight? peter
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 00:38:54 UTC