- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:39:21 -0700
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Proposals like this always remind me of Little Bobby Tables. http://xkcd.com/327/ peter On 09/20/2014 07:27 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: > On 09/20/2014 03:39 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: >> 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? > IMO just having such expressive capacity doesn't have to lead to its > abuse. To give another real world example > > { > "@context": "http://schema.org" > "@type": "Person", > "@id": "http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en.html", > "name": "Franciscus Jorge Mario Bergoglio", > "jobTitle": "Pope", > "spouse" : "NotApplicable" > } > > While an edge case, I see such knowledge less obvious comparing to > 'Volcanos have no faxNumbers'. > > Myself I choose to live #stateless without going through bureaucratic, > procedures to formalize it. I know quite few people who also live > stateless and many more who seriously consider making such step. I also > know at least one person who went through the hassle of geting certified > stateless status http://www.nostate.com/1359/im-officially-stateless/ > > Currently I don't see clear way of publishing such information in > documents describing us. I must agree as for today people can consider > #stateless community a rather small minority. > > I see value in general in having possibility to mark some properties as > NotApplicable. If I just omit them, system consuming them and needing > such information, could put me on a *Request additional information* > list. While if I clearly state N/A I have bigger chance to end up on > *Outside of our target audience* list. So for example dating services > would not spam the Pope with offers, without needing to make him an > exceptional case. > > Once again, if term NotApplicable sounds confusing, maybe some other > mechanism could serve same purpose? >
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 15:39:50 UTC