Re: ItemList proposal

This looking much cleaner.  Like the multi-typing - could work well with CreativeWork to make a ‘created list’, just the kind of thing museums, libraries etc. need.

~Richard

On 11 Sep 2014, at 20:08, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On 11 September 2014 19:12, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why not just leave itemListElement the way it is. I know it's a clumsy name
>> but doesn't changing it just about any ItemList out there no longer is
>> correct?
> 
> Yeah, we do try to avoid ontological vanity. If it's a choice between
> us thinking "oh dear, that could've been better named" and 1000s of
> sites having already adopted something even if awkwardly designed, we
> lean towards being a bit ugly and living with the deployed reality.
> Unless there's a serious usability/intelligibility benefit, or it's
> part of a larger consistency cleanup. In this case it's not sounding
> like we've a strong enough case for renaming - so I think you're
> right. Jason/Vicki, any objections to restoring itemListElement?
> 
> Dan
> 
>> 2014-09-11 20:02 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:
>>> 
>>> On 11 September 2014 18:56, Jason Johnson (BING) <jasjoh@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On second thought, re:  4.       "Change ‘itemListElement’ to
>>>> ‘itemInList’", this could imply 'the list in which the item exists', which
>>>> ideally we avoid.  I still want to eliminate usage of 'element' in the term
>>>> but I'm open to suggestions on alternatives to 'itemInList'.
>>> 
>>> "listedItem"? anyone got a better suggestion?
>>> 
>>> BTW since last msg, I've updated
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/danbri/schemaorg/commit/96183f621e2d28ea11ed23c54e7d7993062b7e1d
>>> with examples hopefully now matching the drafted vocab, and
>>> http://sdo-itemlist.appspot.com/ItemList to match.
>>> 
>>> Dan
>>> 
>> 
>

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 21:01:52 UTC