- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:40:52 +0200
- To: "'Dan Scott'" <dan@coffeecode.net>, "'Vicki Tardif Holland'" <vtardif@google.com>
- Cc: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@google.com>, "'Jason Johnson \(BING\)'" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "'SchemaDot Org'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:46 PM, Dan Scott wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: >> >> If you really want to go down this route, though, I would suggest roleName >> >> directly on Role that could serve for any future subtypes as well. >> >> Otherwise, properties like characterName and namedPosition are just going to >> >> propagate as more Role subtypes emerge for different contexts. >> > >> > roleName on Role (expecting Text or URL) works for me, >> >> Promoting "namedPosition" to Role and renaming the property "roleName" >> or the like soungs good to me. > > Thanks for the positive response, Vicki! I've opened > https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/146 in the hopes of making > this (or the like) happen. Maybe I missed something but why don't we simply use "name" with "Role" to give a role a name? Is name used for something else with roles? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 16:41:34 UTC