RE: Promoting namedPosition to Role and renaming it to roleName (was Re: September Update on Sports)

On Monday, October 13, 2014 7:48 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:46 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland 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?
> 
> You're not missing anything, I suggested exactly that at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Sep/0326.html
> but Dan Brickley was concerned about name's range limitation of Text.

Well, at least I missed that conversation :-)

So, what rolePosition instead of the currently proposed roleName? Actually, I'm not a big fan of those "prefixed properties" but would prefer just "position". However, till we improve Schema.org's infrastructure to tweak the descriptions based on the what class a property is used on, I think such an approach it is not really practical.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 18:10:44 UTC