- From: Guha <guha@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:26:26 -0700
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPAGhv8nRbNkg4S0kxeChhQGjYXR+b3vBwuumLS1OBGCk=dGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Martin,
I am very happy to hear such strong support from someone like you, who has
so much experience doing this. Thank you for the support!
We are furiously doing the backend work to launch this asap.
guha
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de> wrote:
> people assume that developing Web ontologies / shared schemas is =
> relatively little work; after all, how much time does it take to write =
> the definitions for a couple of types and properties? But the reality is =
> that building Web ontologies requires=20
>
> 1. a very well-chosen conceptual model that represents "sweet spots" of =
> data structures that=20
> - are non-trivial to reconstruct by a client from unstructured data,
> - are easy to grasp by human developers from different cultural and =
> professional backgrounds from the label and short description alone,
> - are "markup friendly", i.e. as simple as possible in RDFa and =
> Microdata, and
> - can be reliably populated from existing data structures (e.g. match =
> typical distinctions / structures in back-end databases), and then
>
> 2. align that model well with the existing elements in other =
> vocabularies, namely schema.org (e.g. avoiding the growth of redundant =
> branches of functionality that already exist and avoiding name clashes), =
> and
>
> 2. writing documentation and examples.
>
> Just an estimate: An extension proposal for schema.org of ca. 10 - 15 =
> types plus 15 - 25 properties takes me, roughly, a year, to design. =
> Maybe not full-time, but due to the many discussions and stakeholder, it =
> is really some effort over that period of time.
>
> Now this is only the initial proposal. On the sides of the sponsors of =
> schema.org and other consuming clients, you have to review #1 - #3. In =
> particular checking that an extension proposal is technically sound with =
> regard to all subtleties of the schema.org ecosystem, and that it =
> masters #1 well, is really time-consuming. And it is difficult for =
> domain experts who do it for the first time to get #1 and #2 right.
>
> Extensions beyond ca. 10-20 new types require a really substantial =
> amount of resources from both the external proposers and the sponsors of =
> schema.org.
>
> This is why I think we urgently need such a mechanism to tap the =
> potential of the many, many interesting schemas and standards out there =
> for publishing more structured data on the Web without the need to =
> channel those through the social and technical process of getting into =
> schema.org core.
>
>
> Martin
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de
> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype: mfhepp=20
> twitter: mfhepp
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Mar 2015, at 16:40, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a very important point you bring up, one that goes to the =
> heart of a lot of schema.org decisions.
> >=20
> > I do agree that it is much 'cleaner' for a term to have a single =
> namespace. The cost of this is that the webmaster needs to keep track of =
> namespaces. We estimate on the order of 100s or 1000s of vocabulary =
> creators. We already have millions of webmasters using schema.org. Most =
> applications will use only a single extension, which means that under =
> the proposed scheme, they don't have to worry about namespaces.
> >=20
> > Mixing and matching is of course always open (and welcome). More =
> technical webmasters will do that. We just don't want it to be a =
> requirement to start participating ...
> >=20
> > Thanks for the comments.
> >=20
> > guha
> >=20
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:21 AM, John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com> =
> wrote:
> > Hi Guha,
> > =20
> > I have a few questions/thoughts around the proposal that every item =
> in the core would also be in every extension.
> > =20
> > Would this apply only to the reviewed extensions only, or also to =
> external extensions?
> > =20
> > I can understand that only using terms from a single prefix lowers the =
> bar for getting started, but I don't think it's too tricky to get your =
> head round using multiple prefixes in any of the syntaxes (although some =
> are easier than others).
> > IMHO it would be simpler and more understandable to have a single =
> identifier (URL/URI/IRI) for each term/item rather than multiple =
> aliases.
> > (This however would not preclude that two different extensions might =
> have a different term/item for a very similar concept and hence each has =
> own identifier)
> > =20
> > Also I expect many practical use cases where users need to mix'n'match =
> terms from different extensions.
> > For example the GS1 extension would have many terms for general use =
> and hopefully enough to cover some specific domains like food and =
> beverage, but may not fully cover other domains like consumer =
> electronics.
> > Admittedly this will not be needed in all cases, but I think there are =
> enough to warrant giving it some deep thought (i.e. it is far from a =
> corner case).
> > =20
> > Regards,=20
> >=20
> > John Walker=20
> > Principal Consultant & co-founder=20
> > Semaku B.V.=20
> > SFJ 4.009, Torenallee 20, 5617 BC Eindhoven=20
> > Mobile: +31 6 475 22030=20
> > Email: john.walker@semaku.com=20
> > Skype: jaw111=20
> >=20
> > KvK: 58031405=20
> > BTW: NL852842156B01=20
> > IBAN: NL94 INGB 0008 3219 95=20
> >=20
> > =20
> >> On March 20, 2015 at 12:36 AM Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:=20
> >>=20
> >> The various discussions around this extension proposal seem to have =
> reached quiescence. I am hoping this is more because the questions were =
> answered than because of boredom.
> >> =20
> >> We would like to proceed with the implementation of this proposal. If =
> there are strong objections, now would be the right time to raise them.
> >> =20
> >> guha=20
> >>=20
> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:=20
> >> =20
> >> Schema.org extension mechanism
> >> =20
> >>=20
> >> Motivation
> >> As schema.org adoption has grown, a number groups with more =
> specialized vocabularies have expressed interest in extending schema.org =
> with their terms. The most prominent example of this is GS1 with product =
> vocabularies. Other examples include real estate, medical and =
> bibliographic information. Even in something as common as human names, =
> there are groups interested creating the vocabulary for representing all =
> the intricacies of names.
> >>=20
> >> Outline of solution
> >>=20
> >> There are two kinds of extensions: reviewed extensions and external =
> extensions. Both kinds of extensions typically add subclasses and =
> properties to the core. Properties may be added to existing and/or new =
> classes. More generally, they are an overlay on top of the core, and so =
> they may add domains/ranges, superclasses, etc. as well. Extensions have =
> to be consistent with the core schema.org. Every item in the core (i.e., =
> www.schema.org) is also in every extension. Extensions might overlap =
> with each other in concepts (e.g., two extensions defining terms for =
> financial institutions, one calling it FinancialBank and other calling =
> it FinancialInstitution), but we should not have the same term being =
> reused to mean something completely different (e.g., we should not have =
> two extensions, one using Bank to mean river bank and the other using =
> Bank to mean financial institution).
> >>=20
> >> Reviewed Extensions
> >> Each reviewed extension (say, e1), gets its own chunk of schema.org =
> namespace: e1.schema.org. The items in that extension are created and =
> maintained by the creators of that extension. Reviewed extensions are =
> very different from proposals. A proposal, if accepted, with =
> modifications could either go into the core or become a reviewed =
> extension.
> >>=20
> >> A reviewed extension is something that has been looked at and =
> discussed by the community, albeit not as much as something in the core. =
> We also expect a reviewed extension to have strong community support, =
> preferably in the form of a few deployments.
> >>=20
> >> External Extensions
> >> Sometimes there might be a need for a third party (such as an app =
> developer) to create extensions specific to their application. For =
> example, Pinterest might want to extend the schema.org concept of =
> =91Sharing=92 with =91Pinning=92. In such a case, they can create =
> schema.pinterest.com and put up their extensions, specifying how it =
> links with core schema.org. We will refer to these as external =
> extensions.
> >> =20
> >> How it works for webmasters
> >> All of Schema.org core and all of the reviewed extensions will be =
> available from the schema.org website. Each extension will be linked to =
> from each of the touch points it has with the core. So, if an extension =
> (say, having to do with Legal stuff) creates =
> legal.schema.org/LegalPerson which is a subclass of schema.org/Person, =
> the Person will link to LegalPerson. Typically, a webpage / email will =
> use only a single extension (e.g., legal), in which case, instead of =
> =91schema.org=92 they say =91legal.schema.org=92 and use all of the =
> vocabulary in legal.schema.org and schema.org.
> >>=20
> >> As appropriate, the main schema.org site will also link to relevant =
> external extensions. With external extensions, the use of multiple =
> namespaces is unavoidable.
> >>=20
> >> What does someone creating an extension need to do
> >> We would like extension creators to not have to worry about running =
> a website for their extension. Once the extension is approved, they =
> simply upload a file with their extension into a certain directory on =
> github. Changes are made through the same mechanism.
> >>=20
> >> Since the source code for schema.org is publicly available, we =
> encourage creators of external extensions to use the same application.
> >>=20
> >> Examples
> >>=20
> >> Archives example in RDFa
> >>=20
> >> This example uses a type that makes sense for archival and =
> bibliographic applications but which is not currently in the schema.org =
> core: Microform, defined as "Any form, either film or paper, containing =
> microreproductions of documents for transmission, storage, reading, and =
> printing. (Microfilm, microfiche, microcards, etc.)"
> >>=20
> >> The extension type is taken from http://bibliograph.net/Microform, =
> (which on this proposed model would move to bib.schema.org) which is a =
> version of the opensource schema.org codebases that overlays =
> bibliographic extras onto the core schema.org types. The example is =
> adapted from http://schema.org/workExample.
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> <div vocab=3D"http://bib.schema.org/">
> >> <p typeof=3D"Book" resource=3D"http://www.freebase.com/m/0h35m">
> >> <em property=3D"name">The Fellowship of the Rings</em> was =
> written by
> >> <span property=3D"author">J.R.R Tolkien</span> and was =
> originally published
> >> in the <span property=3D"publisher" typeof=3D"Organization">
> >> <span property=3D"location">United Kingdom</span> by
> >> <span property=3D"name">George Allen & Unwin</span>
> >> </span> in <time property=3D"datePublished">1954</time>.
> >> The book has been republished many times, including editions =
> by
> >> <span property=3D"workExample" typeof=3D"Book">
> >> <span property=3D"publisher" typeof=3D"Organization">
> >> <span property=3D"name">HarperCollins</span>
> >> </span> in <time property=3D"datePublished">1974</time>
> >> (ISBN: <span property=3D"isbn">0007149212</span>)
> >> </span> and by
> >> <span property=3D"workExample" typeof=3D"Book Microform"> =20
> >> <span property=3D"publisher" typeof=3D"Organization">
> >> <span property=3D"name">Microfiche Press</span>
> >> </span> in <time property=3D"datePublished">2016</time>
> >> (ISBN: <span property=3D"isbn">12341234</span>).
> >> </span>
> >> </p>
> >> </div>
> >>=20
> >> Alternative RDFa:
> >>=20
> >> The example above puts all data into the extension namespace. =
> Although this can be mapped back into normal schema.org it puts more =
> work onto consumers. Here is how it would look using multiple =
> vocabularies:
> >>=20
> >> <div vocab=3D"http://schema.org/" prefix=3D"bib: =
> http://bib.schema.org/">
> >> <p typeof=3D"Book" resource=3D"http://www.freebase.com/m/0h35m">
> >> <em property=3D"name">The Fellowship of the Rings</em> was =
> written by
> >> <span property=3D"author">J.R.R Tolkien</span> and was =
> originally published
> >> in the <span property=3D"publisher" typeof=3D"Organization">
> >> <span property=3D"location">United Kingdom</span> by
> >> <span property=3D"name">George Allen & Unwin</span>
> >> </span> in <time property=3D"datePublished">1954</time>.
> >> The book has been republished many times, including editions =
> by
> >> <span property=3D"workExample" typeof=3D"Book">
> >> <span property=3D"publisher" typeof=3D"Organization">
> >> <span property=3D"name">HarperCollins</span>
> >> </span> in <time property=3D"datePublished">1974</time>
> >> (ISBN: <span property=3D"isbn">0007149212</span>)
> >> </span> and by
> >> <span property=3D"workExample" typeof=3D"Book bib:Microform">
> =20=
>
> >> <span property=3D"publisher" typeof=3D"Organization">
> >> <span property=3D"name">Microfiche Press</span>
> >> </span> in <time property=3D"datePublished">2016</time>
> >> (ISBN: <span property=3D"isbn">12341234</span>).
> >> </span>
> >> </p>
> >> </div>
> >>=20
> >> Here is that last approach written in JSON-LD (it works today, but =
> would be even more concise if the schema.org JSON-LD context file was =
> updated to declare the 'bib' extension):
> >>=20
> >> <script type=3D"application/ld+json">
> >> {
> >> "@context": [ "http://schema.org/",
> >> { "bib": "http://bib.schema.org/" } ],
> >> "@id": "http://www.freebase.com/m/0h35m",
> >> "@type": "Book",
> >> "name": "The Fellowship of the Rings",
> >> "author": "J.R.R Tolkien",
> >> "publisher": {
> >> "@type": "Organization",
> >> },
> >> "location": "United Kingdom",
> >> "name": "George Allen & Unwin",
> >> },
> >> "datePublished": "1954",
> >> "workExample": {
> >> "@type": "Book",
> >> "name": "Harper Collins",
> >> "datePublished": "1974",
> >> "isbn": "0007149212"
> >> },
> >> "workExample": {
> >> "@type": ["Book", "bib:Microform"],
> >> "name": "Microfiche Press",
> >> "datePublished": "2016",
> >> "isbn": "12341234"
> >> }
> >> }
> >> </script>
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> GS1 Example
> >>=20
> >> <script type=3D"application/ld+json">
> >> {
> >> "@context": "http://schema.org/",
> >> "@vocab": "http://gs1.schema.org/",
> >> "@id": "http://id.manufacturer.com/gtin/05011476100885",
> >> "gtin13": "5011476100885",
> >> "@type": "TradeItem",
> >> "tradeItemDescription": "Deliciously crunchy Os, packed with 4 =
> whole grains. Say Yes to Cheerios",
> >> "healthClaimDescription": "8 Vitamins & Iron, Source of Calcium & =
> High in Fibre",
> >> "hasAllergenRelatedInformation": {
> >> "@type": "gs1:AllergenRelatedInformation",
> >> "allergenStatement": "May contain nut traces"
> >> },
> >> "hasIngredients": {
> >> "@type": "gs1:FoodAndBeverageIngredient",
> >> "hasIngredientDetail": [
> >> {
> >> "@type": "Ingredient",
> >> "ingredientseq": "1",
> >> "ingredientname": "Cereal Grains",
> >> "ingredientpercentage": "77.5"
> >> },
> >> {
> >> "@type": "Ingredient",
> >> "ingredientseq": "2",
> >> "ingredientname": "Whole Grain OATS",
> >> "ingredientpercentage": "38.0"
> >> }
> >> ]
> >> },
> >> "nutrientBasisQuantity": {
> >> "@type": "Measurement",
> >> "value": "100",
> >> "unit": "GRM"
> >> },
> >> "energyPerNutrientBasis": [
> >> {
> >> "@type": "Measurement",
> >> "value": "1615",
> >> "unit": "KJO"
> >> },
> >> {
> >> "@type": "Measurement",
> >> "value": "382",
> >> "unit": "E14"
> >> }
> >> ],
> >> "proteinPerNutrientBasis": {
> >> "@type": "Measurement",
> >> "value": "8.6",
> >> "unit": "GRM"
> >> }
> >> }
> >>=20
> >> </script>
> >>=20
> >> This example shows a possible encoding of the GS1 schemas overlaid =
> onto schema.org. It uses JSON-LD syntax, which would support several =
> variations on this approach. It is based on examples from GS1's proposal =
> circulated to the schema.org community recently.
> >> =
> (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Jan/0069.html). =
> Instead of writing
> >> "@context": "http://schema.org/", "@vocab": =
> "http://gs1.schema.org/", it would be possible to simply write =
> "@context": "http://gs1.schema.org/".
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >=20
> > =20
> >=20
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 14:27:14 UTC