Re: [Proposal] schema:NotApplicable

On 20 September 2014 14:21, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
<perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see various use cases where I would like to state *NotApplicable*
>
> {
>   "@context": "http://schema.org",
>   "@id": "http://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper",
>   "@type": "Person",
>   "nationality": "NotApplicable",
>   "taxID": "NotApplicable",
>   "vatID": "NotApplicable"
> }
>
> To my understanding by simply omitting those properties I live it open
> for reasoning - "Maybe he has nationality, taxID and vatID but just
> doesn't publish it". Creating schema:NotApplicable or something in this
> line would provide way to make such statements *explicit*. Since we
> don't talk about boolean values here schema:False doesn't look to me
> like something that fits.
>
> Following https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/issues/120
> "Explore adding link to Role into per type, per property navigation
> boilerplate"
> Having such NotApplicable allowed on all properties would make a lot of
> sense to me. I could also see possibility of having one more generic
> type for that and making NotApplicable one of its sub types.
>
> All feedback appreciated!

Can you give an example of who/how this might get used? Omission is a
*lot* simpler. I suspect a much of the time you're saying
"NotApplicable" you might equally well be saying "ItsComplicated".

What's the nationality of Robin Hood? of Jesus Christ? Probably more
"Its Complicated" than "Not Applicable". What were their heights and
weights? Probably "DontKnow". What were their tax IDs? Given all the
bible quotes around tax, this might be DontKnow, NotApplicable or
ItsComplicated for JC, and something similarly messy for the possibly
fictional Robin Hood.

I guess my gut reaction is:

Q: What's worse than having a http://schema.org/faxNumber property
applicable to http://schema.org/Volcano?
A: Having every Volcano description include { "faxNumber": "NotApplicable" }

Do you have particular scenarios in mind where this would be needed,
e.g. around nationality/tax/vat?

cheers,

Dan

Received on Saturday, 20 September 2014 13:39:58 UTC