- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:05:02 +0200
- To: <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Monday, October 13, 2014 8:32 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2014 2:12 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Right, that would clash with the already existing
> http://schema.org/position property.
But it would be quite trivial to solve that the same way it has been solved for http://schema.org/startDate for instance.
> Also, "position", while it works for sports, is a bit of a strange fit
> for the roles played by contributors to comics, movies, etc. The
I don't really see this as a problem. We can also introduce different/more specific properties for those use cases in the future.
> property literally is meant to supply "the name of the role being
> played", and since we can't use the generic "name", "roleName" seems
> like the closest fit.
I would find it quite weird to have both name and roleName - even if roleName takes a URL as value (which I find strange as well):
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "SportsTeam",
"name": "San Francisco 49ers",
"member": {
"@type": "OrganizationRole",
"name": "Joe Montana's Quarterback role",
"roleName": "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterback",
"startDate": "1979",
"endDate": "1992",
"member": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Joe Montana"
}
}
}
If you really don't like rolePosition, what about something like roleIdentifier (probably not a very good idea) or simply roleUrl?
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 19:05:35 UTC