---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:24:53 -0700
Subject: Fwd: For review: Schema.org/Discussion
From: Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org>
To: sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
Hello SIOC people,
In public-voc...@w3.org we ('schema.org' we...) have started a thread
about extending schema.org's vocab in the area of discussions/forums.
See mail from Charlie (copied below).
Now would be a good time to think whether there is a "schema.org
extensions based on SIOC" story worth exploring. Schema.org remains a
single-namespace thing, so using SIOC (or e.g. FOAF, DC, etc.)
directly isn't currently an option. However we've added big chunks of
vocab from existing sources before (IPTC/rNews) and are working on
doing it again (Good Relations). If SIOC-based additions, reconciled
with existing schema.org structures, were proposed, .. no promises but
it might be good timing, especially if they could be merged in with
the vocab mentioned below. Just thinking out loud...
Dan
ps. who'll be at SemTech SF this week? me, scor, ... others? ping me
here or @danbri on twitter...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Charlie Jiang <chji...@microsoft.com>
Date: 2 June 2012 09:36
Subject: For review: Schema.org/Discussion
To: "public-voc...@w3.org" <public-voc...@w3.org>
This proposal is initially for supporting technical discussions.
However, we do see the need to make it domain agnostic. We would love
to have your feedback.
Thanks! We¹ve been thinking along these lines too.
We are going to start a mapping document to see how to SIOC can be aligned
to schema.org, and it would be good to align with the Discussion / Q&A-type
ideas.
> Danbri tried to send this to sioc-dev but his email bounced. see his message
> below.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:24:53 -0700
> Subject: Fwd: For review: Schema.org/Discussion
> From: Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org>
> To: sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
> Hello SIOC people,
> In public-voc...@w3.org we ('schema.org <http://schema.org> ' we...) have
> started a thread
> about extending schema.org <http://schema.org> 's vocab in the area of
> discussions/forums.
> See mail from Charlie (copied below).
> Now would be a good time to think whether there is a "schema.org
> <http://schema.org>
> extensions based on SIOC" story worth exploring. Schema.org remains a
> single-namespace thing, so using SIOC (or e.g. FOAF, DC, etc.)
> directly isn't currently an option. However we've added big chunks of
> vocab from existing sources before (IPTC/rNews) and are working on
> doing it again (Good Relations). If SIOC-based additions, reconciled
> with existing schema.org <http://schema.org> structures, were proposed, .. no
> promises but
> it might be good timing, especially if they could be merged in with
> the vocab mentioned below. Just thinking out loud...
> Dan
> ps. who'll be at SemTech SF this week? me, scor, ... others? ping me
> here or @danbri on twitter...
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Charlie Jiang <chji...@microsoft.com>
> Date: 2 June 2012 09:36
> Subject: For review: Schema.org/Discussion
> To: "public-voc...@w3.org" <public-voc...@w3.org>
> This proposal is initially for supporting technical discussions.
> However, we do see the need to make it domain agnostic. We would love
> to have your feedback.
Actually we have been looking into how to better align SIOC
(http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec) with Schema.org and we would like to produce a
draft review of terms from both sides to see if alignment is possible.
A little bit about SIOC as you may not be aware of it...
SIOC is a schema for describing social web content (posts, comments, forums,
blogs, etc.) - it¹s been in development for nearly eight years and is
currently one of the formats used by Drupal 7 along and various other
applications/sites.
I recently gave a talk about SIOC data (see slides at
http://www.slideshare.net/Cloud/20110426a-amsterdam-ifipsnsci from April)
and according to the recent CommonCrawl dataset, SIOC terms like
UserAccount, Comment and BlogPost are found in the top 20 most commonly-used
RDFa types.
We would be very interested in figuring out what we can do to accommodate
all proposals, even modifying SIOC terms where appropriate.
> This proposal is initially for supporting technical discussions. However, we
> do see the need to make it domain agnostic. We would love to have your
> feedback.
Charlie, all I¹ve been thinking a little bit more about this (six months
later!) and I think it would be good to follow the model used by blogs in
schema.org, (Blog and BlogPosting) but tailor this towards forums by having
the thread or discussion linking the forum to the forum post.
Forums are a little bit different because in threads, posts have more equal
importance (whether they are starter or reply posts) whereas in blogs the
original blog post is the important bit.
Here¹s one idea.
Class Forum (similar to Blog, subtype of CreativeWork)
Property thread -> Thread
Class Thread (or Discussion as proposed by Charlie)
Property post -> Post
Class Post (or ForumPost)
Need to figure out how to type some of these as Questions / Answers /
BestAnswers
I think you were looking for this too Charlie; we have this in SIOC Types
This is similar to the structure of most forums and also allows for easy
markup of Posts within Thread pages and Threads within Forum listings.
> Actually we have been looking into how to better align SIOC
> (http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec) with Schema.org and we would like to produce a
> draft review of terms from both sides to see if alignment is possible.
> A little bit about SIOC as you may not be aware of it...
> SIOC is a schema for describing social web content (posts, comments, forums,
> blogs, etc.) - it¹s been in development for nearly eight years and is
> currently one of the formats used by Drupal 7 along and various other
> applications/sites.
> I recently gave a talk about SIOC data (see slides at
> http://www.slideshare.net/Cloud/20110426a-amsterdam-ifipsnsci from April) and
> according to the recent CommonCrawl dataset, SIOC terms like UserAccount,
> Comment and BlogPost are found in the top 20 most commonly-used RDFa types.
> We would be very interested in figuring out what we can do to accommodate all
> proposals, even modifying SIOC terms where appropriate.
> I will send some more details shortly.
> Thanks!
> John
> On 02/06/2012 17:36, "Charlie Jiang" <chji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> This proposal is initially for supporting technical discussions. However, we
>> do see the need to make it domain agnostic. We would love to have your
>> feedback.
> Charlie, all – I’ve been thinking a little bit more about this (six months
> later!) and I think it would be good to follow the model used by blogs in
> schema.org, (Blog and BlogPosting) but tailor this towards forums by
> having the thread or discussion linking the forum to the forum post.
> Forums are a little bit different because in threads, posts have more
> equal importance (whether they are starter or reply posts) whereas in blogs
> the original blog post is the important bit.
> Here’s one idea.
> Class Forum (similar to Blog, subtype of CreativeWork)
> Property thread -> Thread
> Class Thread (or Discussion as proposed by Charlie)
> Property post -> Post
> Class Post (or ForumPost)
> Need to figure out how to type some of these as Questions / Answers /
> BestAnswers
> I think you were looking for this too Charlie; we have this in SIOC Types
> This is similar to the structure of most forums and also allows for easy
> markup of Posts within Thread pages and Threads within Forum listings.
> Actually we have been looking into how to better align SIOC (
> http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec) with Schema.org and we would like to produce a
> draft review of terms from both sides to see if alignment is possible.
> A little bit about SIOC as you may not be aware of it...
> SIOC is a schema for describing social web content (posts, comments,
> forums, blogs, etc.) - it’s been in development for nearly eight years and
> is currently one of the formats used by Drupal 7 along and various other
> applications/sites.
> I recently gave a talk about SIOC data (see slides at
> http://www.slideshare.net/Cloud/20110426a-amsterdam-ifipsnsci from April)
> and according to the recent CommonCrawl dataset, SIOC terms like
> UserAccount, Comment and BlogPost are found in the top 20 most
> commonly-used RDFa types.
> We would be very interested in figuring out what we can do to accommodate
> all proposals, even modifying SIOC terms where appropriate.
> I will send some more details shortly.
> Thanks!
> John
> On 02/06/2012 17:36, "Charlie Jiang" <chji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> This proposal is initially for supporting technical discussions. However,
> we do see the need to make it domain agnostic. We would love to have your
> feedback.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SIOC-Dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sioc-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
