Gmail Actions avail themselves of very basic EmailMessage properties, mostly inherited from Thing. [1] Isn't the ability to make basic statements about a specific type of object an inherent benefit of having that object available in the vocabulary? [1] https://developers.google.com/gmail/actions/reference/types/EmailMessage On May 16, 2014 5:40 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 01:11:38 UTC