- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:45:11 -0400
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnFAO_vPfo2CDNDgkNxcM5gnwgHvkAtfndhj=B2PE-BLOg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net > wrote: > On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:00 PM, Dan Scott wrote: > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:17:12PM +0100, Dan Brickley wrote: > > >On 17 May 2014 06:31, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> From previous conversations on this list, it looks like > > >> http://schema.org/keywords is meant to hold a list of comma-separated > > >> keywords, like the RDFa on this page: > > >> http://arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item/286: > > >> > > >> <span property="keywords">john burke, msc, football, team</span> > > >> > > >> If this is correct, the description for this property, which currently > reads > > >> "The keywords/tags used to describe this content", could be a bit more > > >> detailled. I suggest: > > >> > > >> A comma-separated list of keywords/tags used to describe this content. > > > > > >This sounds reasonable to me. The only objections I can think of > > >involve trying to stretch this property too far, e.g. phrases that > > >contain commas within them. Let's keep it simple... > > > > > >Does anyone here think that this change would not be an improvement? > > I was just wondering why there doesn't exist a singular version of > "keywords", i.e., "keyword". Was that somehow forgotten when all plurals > were deprecated or was this a deliberate decision? > I had the same reaction as you at first when I discovered this, but 'keywords' was kept plural for that very reason, because it's one string containing a list of comma-separated keywords. I was surprised initially but apparently there are system/folks who prefer to use that as a opposed to breaking down the list into individual properties. Steph. > > I think this matters because... > > > there are currently hundreds and, as sites upgrade, will be thousands > > of library Web sites that express "keywords" like: > > > > * keywords: Linux. > > * keywords: Internet programming. > > * keywords: Web sites > Design. > > * keywords: Electronic mail systems > Security measures. > > > > This is because we augment the existing display of subject headings like > > so: > > > > <div property="keywords"> > > <a href="search?email">Electronic mail systems</a> > > > <a href="search?email+security">Security measures.</a> > > </div> > > could also be expressed as > > <span property="keyword"><a href="search?email">Electronic mail > systems</a></span> > > <span property="keyword"><a href="search?email+security">Security > measures</a></span>. > > which would have the advantage that the keywords are already tokenized by > the publisher instead of forcing the consumer to do so... which would, > btw., > also address Stéphane's concern below > > > >This sounds reasonable to me. The only objections I can think of > > >involve trying to stretch this property too far, e.g. phrases that > > >contain commas within them. Let's keep it simple... > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > -- Steph.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 14:45:39 UTC