Re: Schema.org extensions versus core

On 5/6/15 11:22 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> I meant:
>
> Type = Entity Type
> Facet = Relationship/Attribute Type

Clear and consistent with my understanding.

Thanks!

Kingsley
>
> 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
> twitter: mfhepp
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 06 May 2015, at 15:30, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/6/15 4:50 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>> Dear Guha:
>>> Thanks for this important guideline! One question - could you please clarify what you mean with:
>>>
>>>> 2. It must have at least 10m weekly users. Preferably 100m
>>> Does this refer to the number of times a type or facet is relevant for a search engine query? Or the total number of human visitors to the Web sites that implement the conceptual elements?
>>>
>>> Martin
>> Martin,
>>
>> I am being picky about terminology use, but for the sole purpose of communications clarity. Thus, aren't the following synonyms: Facet, Feature, Characteristic, Aspect, Attribute, Quality? If so, the "Facet or Type" comment above is a little confusing, hence my question [1][2][3].
>>
>> Wondering where I am headed with this? Fundamentally, it's all about clearly defining faceted browsing [4] which is ultimately impacted by Schema.org term usage especially in regards to determining usage and actual utility etc..
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> [1] http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/feature
>> [2] http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/facet
>> [3] http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/Attribute
>> [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2015Apr/0075.html -- LOD list post about Faceted Browsing.
>>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 06 May 2015, at 03:59, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There has been a request to clarify when something should go into an extension versus when something should go into the core. Here is a first stab at clarifying that.
>>>>
>>>> For something to be in the core, the following conditions must be satisfied:
>>>>
>>>> 1. There must be at least a 1000 sites that will use it. Preferably 10,000+
>>>> 2. It must have at least 10m weekly users. Preferably 100m
>>>> 3. The vocabulary must be relatively compact. Less than 20 terms.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, these are not hard constraints. We also recognize that vocabularies evolve and more usage than planned might happen. We expect terms or entire vocabularies to move from the extensions to core and vice versa.
>>>>
>>>> This is a start of the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> guha
>>>>
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
>>> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen	
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this