W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2015

Re: What are those enumerations after the breadcrumb's :: called?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 22:20:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6NHgduqX0AWrcpWAUJTZbsFu5oJKA_Dpsy9VjDNhq_wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
On 17 January 2015 at 19:34, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would note that the range of schema:contactType is schema:Text, and thus
> not a schema:Enumeration.
> Note that the supported values are English language phrases, with
> spaces,etc.
> Enumeration values, by contrast, are URIs, see e.g:
> https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en
> "For example, it is recommended that if you’re using enumerations and
> canonical references to use the link tag with href, and to use the meta tag
> with content for missing or implicit information."
> Further to my remark yesterday wondering about where information about
> Google required properties can be found, it seems that this information is
> not available in machine readable form directly, but is given in a number of
> different tabular formats on various type specific pages.
> Some of the restrictions are country and category specific.
> It may be possible to convert this information to machine readable form
> using screen scraping, though I have not looked to see if there is RDFa or
> microdata embedded in the tables.

There's nothing hidden in the tables! This is what you might call an
"interesting problem", w.r.t. machine formats. The fewer apps use the
data, the easier it is to say that x is 'required' or optional. But
often enough "required" has some subtleties, although some
approximation for each type you might have a list of 'required' fields
for a given consumer (company? product? feature?).  It will be
interesting to see what comes out of

Anyway at this point the documents in
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/structured-data/ and the
associated testing tool are very much human oriented. It's not
inconceivable we'll find some way to express that mechanically, but
... humans first!



ps. am somewhat reminded of http://examplotron.org/

> I have not looked for corresponding restrictions for other partners.
> Simon // Plutocratic Plange processor
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2015 22:20:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:38 UTC