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

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

From: Kevin Polley <kevin.polley@mutualadvantage.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:53:32 -0000
Message-ID: <8814377457274af2295c134719f07257.squirrel@>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "Simon Spero" <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "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>
Can I get a clarification please.

Is "customer service" a supported value for contactType or will it be
supported later?

The reason I ask is that it does not appear in the list of the required
example values but does appear in the code examples.


Kevin Polley

> 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
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page
> 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!
> cheers,
> Dan
> ps. am somewhat reminded of http://examplotron.org/
>> I have not looked for corresponding restrictions for other partners.
>> Simon // Plutocratic Plange processor
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2015 17:54:03 UTC

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