Re: Email Message Definition?

On 5/16/14 9:11 PM, Aaron Bradley wrote:
> 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] 

Is a vocabulary for Gmail? I thought it was a vocabulary that 
applications and services like Gmail *could* put to use.

I read definitions assuming they are definitions without any 
application or service specificity.

BTW -- can adding a comment and a label to a properties table be such a 
big deal, when the net effect is clarity?

> On May 16, 2014 5:40 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" 
> < <>> wrote:
>     On 05/16/2014 04:10 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>         [...]
>         I think there's a difference of perspective here. For
> <> 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



Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter Profile:
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:38:10 UTC