RE: Schema.org extensions versus core

In general, I really like the attempt to quantify usage as a way to qualify something for the core. I’m not sure the two metrics (# of websites, # of weekly users on consuming apps) are optimal for this, though.

For # of weekly users, I think Martin’s option of “total number of human visitors to the web sites that implement the conceptual elements” is a better measure. I would expect this to include search engines showing results for the conceptual elements and would tweak it from “visitors to the web sites…” to “visitors to the web pages…”, but otherwise, I think this is a great measure. It is basically a web-wide popularity measure, independent of whether a given consumer has yet paid attention to the domain.

Wes, do you think the above would give you a way to measure the usage of schema:Course?

For websites, what about cases where there are a few very high-volume sites. For example, if there were no eCommerce vocabulary already in the core, wouldn’t the existence of Amazon, eBay, and Walmart by themselves be sufficient to justify having one? If so, perhaps we can simply eliminate this criterion in favor of the (proposed adapted) # of weekly users criterion?

The compactness constraint is a tough one. As worded, I think it may encourage people to “trickle in” their changes. I.e., it doesn’t prevent me from adding 5 terms per release for 10 releases. It would be nice to say something about how large a given “domain” (products, autos, medical, etc.) should be allowed to get instead, but then you need to define what a domain is and how to tell which terms are within it. Anyone have a good way to do this?

From: Wes Turner [mailto:wes.turner@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Ramanathan Guha
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org; Martin Hepp
Subject: Re: Schema.org extensions versus core


So, for example, schema:Course:

How would one quantitatively justify schema:Course in terms of impressions?
On May 6, 2015 4:44 PM, "Guha" <guha@google.com<mailto:guha@google.com>> wrote:
I am referring to users of applications that consume the data (like search engines).

guha

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de<mailto:martin.hepp@unibw.de>> 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



> On 06 May 2015, at 03:59, Guha <guha@google.com<mailto: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<mailto:mhepp@computer.org>          @mfhepp