- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:03:41 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- CC: Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 9/2/14, 8:20 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Glancing throughhttp://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relacode.html > there's a lot in there. Are there any super-useful things we're > missing that could be argued for inclusion as first class properties? Rather than guessing at this, is there any data we can consult? Unfortunately, libraries haven't applied the relators uniformly, but it may be possible to get some stats. I would also think that the search engines have some concept of which search terms lead to the selection of items. That was my point about illustrator vs. translator - while in libraries we tend to record what we know about something, with little regard to whether our users care, I assume that online stores and search engines have a better idea of what makes for a successful search. If my assumption is correct that use of schema.org is aimed at searching and linking, then we should optimize for searching and linking. If, instead, schema.org is intended to mark up every possible fact or aspect that can appear on a web page, then I can't see how we can make rational decisions about what to include and what to exclude. I admit that "convenience for the programmer" has validity, and if adding the occasional bit of cruft makes it easier, that's fine. But I would suggest finding some clarity on how to set bounds on a finite schema.org universe. Decisions are random without criteria. Like Martin Hepp has often said, schema.org has crept up from a few useful bits of markup to something that seems about to crumble under its own weight. Where are we going with this? (Oh, I know that's a question that DanBri just LOVES to hear ;-)) All that to say that I would exercise great caution in adding new roles because, as I said before, there are more points of view than any of us can imagine. Dan Scott illustrated some with IMDB. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 17:04:14 UTC