- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:40:55 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, public-vocabs@w3.org
On 09/21/2014 10:15 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On 20 Sep 2014 at 23:10, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: >> On 09/20/2014 10:25 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> "spouse": "notApplicable" >>> >>> is incredibly vague. The person could be single, widowed, be secretly >>> married, be in a culture where marriage does not confer "spouse-ness" or >>> "spouse-ness" could simply be irrelevant to the context in question. >> I agree that it doesn't clarify a lot but at least signals N/A, which >> gives at least *some clue*. >> >> BTW vcard:None, vcard:Other, vcard:Unknown exist as sub classes of >> vcard:Gender schema:gender http://schema.org/gender could at least >> recommend some external enumeration! >> >> Thank you for all the feedback Karen, if no one else finds types like >> schema:None and schema:NotApplicable useful, of course I will not argue >> about it any more :) > > I'm quite sure that sooner or later we will need something like schema:None / schema:Null / schema:Nil to be able to explicitly state that there's no data for something but I agree with Karen that schema:NotApplicable is extremely vague and doesn't convey more information than simply omitting that field. Thanks Markus! I proposed schema:NotApplicable since I just write by hand N/A every other day in various web forms that bug me for 'required' information which simply doesn't apply to me (nationality, address etc.) schema:None, schema:Null, schema:Nil or even schema:LOL all work fine for me as long as we could agree upon something and recommend it for such cases. I also agree that I didn't make best choice coming up with Pope.spouse example. I would propose to freeze this thread until me or someone else writes down some more realistic use cases!
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 20:43:13 UTC