- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 13:21:14 +0200
- To: <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:04 PM, Jarno van Driel wrote: > Personally I'm pretty happy using 'url' for this. Do you have any > particular reason not to this property? Yes. "url" is defined to be the "URL of the item" I don't wanna go down the httpRange-14 rathole but a person's homepage isn't it's URL. > Maybe adding HomePage as a subClass of WebPage could help? (although > the purpose of all of WebPage's variants still isn't clear yet, so > maybe that should be discussed as well) A specific web page may be a home page for something/someone but that doesn't make it inherently a home page. So I don't think we need a new type for this. And to answer Dan's reply On 20 Sep 2014 at 12:03, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 20 September 2014 10:54, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> I'd like to propose to create a new property "homepage" with a domain of >> Person and Organization and a range of WebPage. There might be other types >> that could benefit from this property but let's keep it simple for the time >> being. > > We've gone around variations of this one a few times, e.g. long > threads on 'social account', blog, official page etc. There are a I know, but let's try to keep it simple here. I think capturing someone's/something's homepage is way simpler and less controversial than modelling social accounts etc. We could of course generalize it and talk about a "website" instead of the "homepage" but that would make things more complex IMO (is it just that specific page or of which pages does that website consist?). > number of overlapping and slippery concepts that people would like to > capture better. But each time we add a new property it needs > distinguishing from all those we already have, and you can make a case > that 'url' and 'sameAs' are already substantially in this area > already. Well, I generally don't like "url" to be honest but that's a different topic. The main problem is that "url" doesn't have enough semantics in this case. It's used (inconsistently) for too many things already. > The more recent WebSite type adds another option too. See above. I'd be fine to use website instead but I think homepage is simpler and avoids a lot of difficult questions/discussions. > Could a blog or facebook page or twitter account or youtube account be > a "homepage"? Is being on someone's business card evidence enough? Sure, why not? > I'm not saying 'no', rather that discussions on this topic have a > history of churning... That's why I would like to keep it simple :-) Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 11:21:44 UTC