Add pronouns attribute to Person #3272
Conversation
Fixes schemaorg#2935 and schemaorg#2925 Inspired by schemaorg#1112
|
One thing that isn't covered: Some people have multiple sets of pronouns or use any of them. While you can use the |
|
This would need to work for all languages - is there precedent for doing so
in a structured form?
…On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 08:19, Sebastian Hädrich ***@***.***> wrote:
One thing that isn't covered: Some people have multiple sets of pronouns
or use any of them. While you *can* use the :Text option, it would be
nice to have an array for each set of pronouns. Should there be a
:PronounsAny type as well?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGMCCVR445ZMY7JELR3WZ4BCDANCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CU>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Is there a recognised authoritative source for such things (sets of pronouns) that could be referenced or linked to. |
|
@RichardWallis I linked https://springfield.edu/gender-pronouns and https://pronoun.is/ for further information in the issue but of course, these are no official sources. Would you consider grammar an authorative source and if not, what would qualify as such? @danbri I don't even think, gender works in each and every language. But I'm not enough of a linguist to provide you with several languages' culture and characteristics. What kind of information would you want as a precedent? And in case of exceptions from the rule, there's always the |
|
I would love to see this move forward 🙏 |
|
@zichy I'm afraid, my last answer was not enough to react to it :/ |
|
I checked with the AP Style to see if they have an authoritative source. They are linking to the following. GLAAD Media Reference Guide - 11th Edition |
|
This pull request is being nudged due to inactivity. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
no-pr-activity
|
Well, I answered the questions as good as I could. If that's not enough … |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
no-pr-activity
|
This pull request is being nudged due to inactivity. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
no-pr-activity
|
I'm really confused why there's no movement on this addition. It's a pretty simple addition, recognized sources have been provided for references, and a large majority of websites currently implement these fields on profiles, would be nice to have schema support on this. |
|
I just realized that GitHub itself does already use 
|
|
After all, it's just a string, and it can say anything—but nice catch though 👍🏻 I checked, and it doesn't seem like schema.org secretly sneaked in this attribute via another PR or something. |
|
Q: if I were to use schema markup to write “pronouns: they” about myself as
a Person, what could a reasonable party conclude about me, based on the
proposed new definition? Am I communicating something about my gender
identity, or about how I prefer to be written about?
…On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 12:56, Sebastian Hädrich ***@***.***> wrote:
After all, it's just a string and it can say anything—but nice catch
though 👍🏻
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGL3QM3O7SYLXWTARVTYNFCZDAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZZGY3TINJZHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
If there wasn't any value, why would so many websites (including GitHub) implement this as profile information?
Pronouns might correlate with gender (being the case in most normative settings), however, they might just as well not, especially for non-binary people. |
|
I am certainly not saying there is no value! when we add new definitions to schema.org, a vocabulary used on many millions of websites, we have some responsibility to try to make it as clear as possible what the markup means; … what it communicates. That said, we have a long tradition of scruffy pragmatic definitions with various kinds of wiggleroom for alternative readings and evolving interpretations. In this current case it seems prudent to be as clear as possible since we touch on matters that are socially very weighty. |
|
So what are we exactly talking about at the current stage?
|
|
With respect - that is rather backwards. It is never a no-brainer to add a
property whose definition doesn’t clarify its appropriate values.
We have made that mistake plenty of times before and the result is that
questions later rain down upon this project.
Let’s start from what needs to be expressed. We also generally seek
implementation commitments from parties who will use (consume, process
etc.) the data in software, services, tools etc.
…On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 14:04, Sebastian Hädrich ***@***.***> wrote:
So what are we exactly talking about at the current stage?
- Whether we want to have that attribute or not? → I think, this is a
no-brainer
- The naming of the attribute and/or the possible values → I'm open
for suggestions
- The interpretation of the attribute and its values → if the first
point is answered with "yes", this is merely a question for the docs rather
than the implementation itself
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGIKAE6JYV3LRL6XSWTYNFKVXAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZZGY4TMOJYGI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
I can only emphasize this once more:
It's already common practice. So this would merely be catching up with real life.
So, how exactly does this process work and what can we do about it? |
|
Let’s dig into the github example,
https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/setting-up-and-managing-your-github-profile/customizing-your-profile/personalizing-your-profile#adding-pronouns-to-your-profile
is interesting. The meaning there seems to be “pronouns that some account
holder on a website prefers be used when mentioning (eg in UI elements)
that user to others on that site”.
In this situation it isn’t clear what value using a machine readable data
sharing system like Schema.org adds, since Github are both the publisher
and consumer of the markup. In fact they may not use the markup at all.
They also make this point:
Note: Any details you add to your public GitHub profile will be visible
to all GitHub users, including in regions where local laws, regulations, or
cultural norms may pose risks to expressing your identity. We respect
everyone's decision about whether or not to share information about
themselves on their GitHub profile
They are very explicit that this is not information they expect to widely
broadcast. I have no idea why they put it into an itemprop in their page.
Maybe used in their CSs?
Add pronouns to your public user profile to share information about
yourself with other GitHub users. Your pronouns will only be visible to
users that are signed in to GitHub.
Can you say a bit more about the perceived benefits to users of this change
being made to Schema.org. Examples of projects that would *do something*
positive with the data. Saying that it is used on Github so should be used
on Schema.org is not a good analogy. Schema.org is for communicating data
across various barriers, which is why we may seem pedantic when it comes to
needing clear definitions up front. Our project is nothing but definitions.
If the definition needs to appeal to the notion of a user on a site, for
example, that would be useful to agree up front. If it is just a general
fact about a person, that is also useful to know and agree. But we don’t
want half the world thinking it is one and the other half taking the other
interpretation. By asking for information about projects who are likely to
use the data, we are just trying to head off such problems up front. Maybe
the Solid project would be interested here?
On the modeling side it could be easier to represent if we had a type
representing an account on some site/service, rather than just for people
“in the abstract”.
…On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 15:00, Sebastian Hädrich ***@***.***> wrote:
I can only emphasize this once more:
what could a reasonable party conclude about me, based on the
proposed new definition?
If there wasn't any value, why would so many websites (including GitHub)
implement this as profile information?
I just realized that GitHub itself does already use itemprop="pronouns".
[image: Screenshot of the pronouns in GitHub]
<https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/173749/294678155-d6fcf2dc-c32e-4dde-8120-5ce6ba6731a7.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJnaXRodWIuY29tIiwiYXVkIjoicmF3LmdpdGh1YnVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbSIsImtleSI6ImtleTUiLCJleHAiOjE3MDQ1NTMyNTcsIm5iZiI6MTcwNDU1Mjk1NywicGF0aCI6Ii8xNzM3NDkvMjk0Njc4MTU1LWQ2ZmNmMmRjLWMzMmUtNGRkZS04MTIwLTVjZTZiYTY3MzFhNy5wbmc_WC1BbXotQWxnb3JpdGhtPUFXUzQtSE1BQy1TSEEyNTYmWC1BbXotQ3JlZGVudGlhbD1BS0lBVkNPRFlMU0E1M1BRSzRaQSUyRjIwMjQwMTA2JTJGdXMtZWFzdC0xJTJGczMlMkZhd3M0X3JlcXVlc3QmWC1BbXotRGF0ZT0yMDI0MDEwNlQxNDU1NTdaJlgtQW16LUV4cGlyZXM9MzAwJlgtQW16LVNpZ25hdHVyZT00MDY2MWI2MGZlMDIwMjkwZjg2YzJiYWYzZTJjMzk4ZGI1Yjc0NzNkNDg3YjNjNTRmNzhiMzAxOWQ4OTYyNDhiJlgtQW16LVNpZ25lZEhlYWRlcnM9aG9zdCZhY3Rvcl9pZD0wJmtleV9pZD0wJnJlcG9faWQ9MCJ9.0eAcLDiPzgN2JJbAPkea-y1unI-b1NMyeknAv1Qkpm4>
It's already common practice. So this would merely be catching up with
real life.
Let’s start from what needs to be expressed. We also generally seek
implementation commitments from parties who will use (consume, process
etc.) the data in software, services, tools etc.
So, how exactly does this process work and what can we do about it?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGM4XQHLGCVUJBV2ETTYNFRHRAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZZG4ZDCNRQHE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Schema.org ProposalAdd "pronouns" property to "Person"BackgroundSchema.org's person schema offers a way to identify the gender of an individual, however, one's gender identity does not automatically identify the appropriate pronouns on an individual. In some cases, especially with the increasing use of AI generated content, to be able to identify the pronouns of a person(s) to properly generate programmatic content, as well as generating metadata in search algorithms, etc. This feature would also be useful for any sort of database generation where someone, or some program may be scraping data to populate a database to be used when writing articles about an individual to reference specific data about them. This data would be valuable for storage in many systems including patient data management systems, employee tracking systems, identity providers. The more we include pronouns into our meta-data for users as we do many other, less important, pieces of information on a "person" the more we can reduce the mistakes of people when referencing other people. As someone who is, themselves, transgender, I can see a world where in the metadata for sending an email within an organization, pronouns may be displayed in the editor to notify the author of the pronouns any person in the organization may use. In a patient data management system it would be a field displayed (and in some already is) to medical providers to ensure they are following standards of care by referring to patients with the appropriate pronouns, as some systems don't currently support this and results in having to hunt the information down. I believe the debate over the value, or need of the addition of this relatively simple parameter is a bit reductive. The person type has the following properties, callSign, honorificPrefix, honorificSuffix. Why callSign would serve more use than pronouns in the schema would be a pretty interesting take to hear as I imagine very few of schema.org's users actually implement this field. ImplementationTo align with a use for programmatic content generation, as well as a general data collection perspective I propose the creation of a new intangible type. In this context "pronouns" would be a "thing" a person has to describe it in the same sense a person would have an "occupation". Thing > Intangible > Pronouns:nominativePronounexamples: he, she, they, xe possessivePronounexamples: his, hers, theirs, xeirs objectivePronounexamples: him, her, them, xir displayPronounexamples: "he/him/his", "she/her/hers", "they/them/theirs", "xe/xir/xirs" I personally would leave it up to every individual site to full define how these are filled, I imagine most sites would just use the "displayPronouns" option by default as in GitHub's implementation it's a free-form field with no per-designated options. This offers a way for websites that do offer pre-baked options, to have a more defined schema in the backend when it comes to generating content from these fields (ex: Facebook who generates notification strings based on pronoun fields). Otherwise, the currently proposed commit would also work, however to keep with the programtic nature that schema wants to enforce, require a string consisting of 1-3 parts separated by "/". This separation format is widely used when identifying pronouns for an individual for easily parsing. |
|
I know you've been responding from email, I'd like to note I made some additional updates to my previous message. |
|
I also would like to make some additional points. I've seen in previous comments that have been made on this discussion that maybe it shouldn't be added because people may "miss" the subtext due to translation, etc. You used the example of a dating website that became popular in Iran where users misinterpreted a "looking for" field's subtext to include friendship, or business type relationship building. This would not be an error on the part of schema.org, as in a schema sense, "lookingFor" if it existed in the schema could mean many things depending on the website it's being used on. I guess "seeks" could be used in this context, but it would be solely up to each website to implement their own definition of this property. Pronouns, would have a singular use across the board. While some users may use different pronouns based on what website they're using, and the region their in, local laws, etc, the underlying purpose is the same, provide the pronoun definition for an individual. We are evolving as a society, and with it comes new ways for people to describe and express themselves. Pronouns are used everyday, whether people want to believe it or not, and there is a very real need for a machine-readable field to be able to process this information and store it or distribute it elsewhere. I'm not sure why the argument so far has been a bunch of what ifs, or where the value is. It's beginning to look like schema.org is resistive to implementing the property, but is trying to avoid any negative public opinion on the push-back at the same time. This field is widely used, serves an obvious purpose, and as other fields, would be up to the developer implementing the field into their schema, to figure out the semantics used in their implementation. I think the biggest thing that got me to comment and participate in the discussion is the fact that these were originally discussed in July and August 2021, a PR was made Feb of 2023, the last comments from contributors was March 1 despite several updates by those proposing this change. Many of the responses to the discussions have been rather defensive and borderline combative. While I can understand the need to gather information given the sensitive nature of the subject I believe it could have been done better if the goal is truly making sure it's done right. But simply asking for an "authoritative" source and then not re-engaging when people provide these resources is not really a great way to show you're trying to "get it right" |
There's only one way to find out. Let's at-mention @solid (not sure, whom to approach here: @VirginiaBalseiro /@csarven /@justinwb /@kjetilk /@KyraAssaad)
Just because something is used in the UI, doesn't mean, it can't also be used in some shape or form of structured data about an entity.
My thoughts exactly! Are there any plans to move @RaineAllDay Thanks for speaking up 👍🏻
Some might even need reflexivePronoun There might be more in other languages. Interestingly enough, schema.org already has a |
|
If there is opposition to the proposal I prepared from the maintainers, they need to come from a perspective of not matching current standards. As I have not participated in the creation of new schema properties I am not versed in the structure in which the proposal process usually goes. However, the continued discussion and argument over it's value, or need for authoritative sources for values, etc. needs to stop. I am happy to discuss the potential formats, or structure of the data, but it's obviously something that would be useful, unless of course the users of schema.org are only conservative websites that believe that pronouns aren't real, then maybe I can accept the argument that there is no value. Will every schema consumer use the pronoun property? Probably not, but then again, there are many properties not used from any given type, so it's not a valid argument. This data can serve MANY purposes being shared in a structured way. 99% of the time the data will most likely be used to just display on a profile somewhere. But especially in medical systems which are becoming more and more integrated, ex: insurance data is shared between doctors prescription system and pharmacy, sharing pronoun data is really important, and by having recognized schema orgs include it in their schema, I think it can help continue the progression of implementing these fields into systems that would benefit from consumption. |
|
Second that. Also, there's much value for research, when grouping data together. Something, that can hardly be said about a call sign. |
Thanks for the mention. Indeed, this has been discussed in the Solid context. I was opposed to add it there, but only because I felt that vocab is for technical stuff. I think it would be great to have it in schema.org, as I think that would be not only appropriate for it, but also a good place to have it for use in your Solid profile. I don't have any particular opinions on the details of how it should look in schema.org. |
|
Please assume good faith here.
1.) Do check in with Solid and others. A “yes we will write code to do
useful things for real users” commitment counts for a lot.
2.) I am not demanding official lists of values. Rather I am concerned that
we need to be clear about the meaning of the property.
3.) Having said that, a fuzzy by design “pronouns” property may have
positive user safety characteristics. Eg if leaked a user could appeal to
flexibility of definition.
Eg. “pronouns”: “A textual representation of a person’s pronouns. The exact
form used varies between sites, cultures, languages and communities.”
I would be tempted to add: “It is best to consider this information as a
hint for use when generating text and other information mentioning some
person, rather than as a proxy for other facts about them.” (considering
the issues raised by GitHub I mentioned earlier, and the Orkut/Iran case).
4.) anyone know how far this got in ietf? There was a proposal to add
PRONOUN to the vCard standard,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vcarddav/FCjVznQHsmtPPLmv2z69OcxL8u0/#
…On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 18:53, Sebastian Hädrich ***@***.***> wrote:
Second that.
Also, there's much value for research, when grouping data together.
Something, that can hardly be said about a call sign.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGKYQJCJLMY24D7LUQLYNGMT7AVCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZZG44DENJRGY>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Sounds good to me.
Pro
Contra
So, ideally, we have both, as addressed by @RaineAllDay in #3272 (comment). There's even some implementation details up for debate because of the potential complexity: #2925 (comment)
The point here is, that of course, not everyone will use it at all and there'll be preferences for one of the two options (one attribute vs multiple), respectively. As schema.org is a generalized/abstracted vocabulary to be widely applicable, it shouldn't necessarily be schema.org's task to decide for other sites, how to implement it. It's like when a site offers "basic settings" and "advanced settings"—they don't automatically contradict the need for the other. |
The pronouns definition would be far easier to define than the currently existing "gender" definition. Gender has a wider spectrum of meaning depending on many factors. The current implementation refers to values of "biological sex", however, general social standards creates a clear segmentation of the two, and unfortunately this has not been helped by academia's interchangeable use of these terms.
I'm really not sure why you keep bringing this up. Transgender individuals, or individuals who may use pronouns that are not directly directive from their gender or biological sex, are very aware of the safety concerns that face us, we typically know when it is safe or unsafe to use the pronouns we best identify with. From the sounds of the Iran thing, you had individuals who were heterosexual marking "both" who then may have been exposed to persecution from their government. This is a case of people unknowingly selecting options that may present a representation that could cause harm. I don't believe a pronoun property to offer the same misunderstandings, and potential conflicts as described in this scenario.
It is hard to assume good faith when this topic has been repetitively brought up and abandoned. As I've looked back through the previous discussions, the implementation has been delayed by asking for information, when information is provided no response is given further to explore. There is no discussion going on here. Just weird reasons why you feel it shouldn't exist, or the need for further definition despite the fact that generally acceptable definitions are provided. It all actively feels resistive, not exploitative. It may even just best be handled by having a free-text field as described in the IETF post. While this would limit the use of automated systems parsing the information, in a majority of the online space and social spaces using English as the primary and collaborative language it is understood what "pronouns" means, and how to use them, and what the format is. I will be happy to entertain a discussion on further exploring the best way to describe the metadata. There are several organizations I'm sure we could reach out to for input. In the United States, GLADD is a pretty standard resource. WPATH, an NGO responsible for creating the Standards of Care (US Standard for Trans healthcare, currently being reviewed for adoption by the NHS) could be another resource. I'm happy to sort through my catalog of references for gender identity, etc to provide academic level resources on the matter. My biggest issue is the consistent abandonment of the discussion by the maintainers, and consistent deflection. If you're not willing to do the leg work to satisfy questions you may have to make sure you going the right direction, please let me know what information I can provide to satisfy any concerns or questions. I am transgender myself, I am decently involved within the community, and often spend some free time reading through research papers to better understand the science and articulate how science agrees with/supports the transgender community. I can understand Solid's reservations on adding it, as from what I could tell, they don't have many other terms specifically describing a person. Schema.org however, that's literally the whole point of the Person type. |
|
The point about Solid was that TimBL enquired informally about adding such
a property to schema.org or foaf a while back, but we didnt follow up the
conversation yet
…On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 21:47, Alexis Emerson ***@***.***> wrote:
2.) I am not demanding official lists of values. Rather I am concerned
that we need to be clear about the meaning of the property.
The pronouns definition would be far easier to define than the currently
existing "gender" definition. Gender has a wider spectrum of meaning
depending on many factors. The current implementation refers to values of
"biological sex", however, general social standards creates a clear
segmentation of the two, and unfortunately this has not been helped by
academia's interchangeable use of these terms.
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12913047/>
(considering the issues raised by GitHub I mentioned earlier, and the
Orkut/Iran case).
I'm really not sure why you keep bringing this up. Transgender
individuals, or individuals who may use pronouns that are not directly
directive from their gender or biological sex, are very aware of the safety
concerns that face us, we typically know when it is safe or unsafe to use
the pronouns we best identify with. From the sounds of the Iran thing, you
had individuals who were heterosexual marking "both" who then may have been
exposed to persecution from their government. This is a case of people
unknowingly selecting options that may present a representation that could
cause harm. I don't believe a pronoun property to offer the same
misunderstandings, and potential conflicts as described in this scenario.
Please assume good faith here.
It is hard to assume good faith when this topic has been repetitively
brought up and abandoned. As I've looked back through the previous
discussions, the implementation has been delayed by asking for information,
when information is provided no response is given further to explore. There
is no discussion going on here. Just weird reasons why you feel it
shouldn't exist, or the need for further definition despite the fact that
generally acceptable definitions are provided. It all actively feels
resistive, not exploitative. It may even just best be handled by having a
free-text field as described in the IETF post. While this would limit the
use of automated systems parsing the information, in a majority of the
online space and social spaces using English as the primary and
collaborative language it is understood what "pronouns" means, and how to
use them, and what the format is.
I will be happy to entertain a discussion on further exploring the best
way to describe the metadata. There are several organizations I'm sure we
could reach out to for input. In the United States, GLADD is a pretty
standard resource. WPATH, an NGO responsible for creating the Standards of
Care (US Standard for Trans healthcare, currently being reviewed for
adoption by the NHS) could be another resource. I'm happy to sort through
my catalog of references for gender identity, etc to provide academic level
resources on the matter. My biggest issue is the consistent abandonment of
the discussion by the maintainers, and consistent deflection. If you're not
willing to do the leg work to satisfy questions you may have to make sure
you going the right direction, please let me know what information I can
provide to satisfy any concerns or questions. I am transgender myself, I am
decently involved within the community, and often spend some free time
reading through research papers to better understand the science and
articulate how science agrees with/supports the transgender community.
I can understand Solid's reservations on adding it, as from what I could
tell, they don't have many other terms specifically describing a person.
Schema.org however, that's literally the whole point of the Person type.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGKE4Y7W66NHFFL5PGLYNHA7XAVCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNZZHAZTQMRQG4>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
He'll probably be glad to hear back once we've reached a consensus. |
I was simply referencing that I had researched their discussion on the matter. In their case, it does make sense that it shouldn't live in their standard as they are not actively holding other information that would be categorically similar. |
|
We just got another suggestion: #2925 (reply in thread) |
|
@danbri Can we get some feedback on what the plan is moving forward? Once again the discussion has pretty much halted from your side. |
|
How can we choose amongst the different proposals until someone steps up to
say “we plan to build something using this data”?
There’s a spectrum with machine-processable linguistically modeled
structures at one end and “some text pertaining to pronouns” at the other.
If you were building a tool to customize UI of software for users then the
former might be more appealing, if you wanted to maximise user expressivity
and flexibility and exploit the richness of natural language even at the
expense of machine interpretability, the latter might be more appealing.
Or we could just throw both in and see if either get used, except the
language modeling version looks pretty hard as it could differ for each
language. Should we just start with unstructured “pronoun-oriented” text
and leave a placeholder for more ambitious schemes if anyone steps forward
with a need for them?
…On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 22:30, Alexis Emerson ***@***.***> wrote:
@danbri <https://github.com/danbri> Can we get some feedback on what the
plan is moving forward? Once again the discussion has pretty much halted
from your side.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGIMSGCZSMCWYNVJFNTYRLAZ3AVCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMRQGA4TGNZQGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
In the spirit of asking questions:
That would at least be some kind of start 👍🏻 |
|
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 22:59, Sebastian Hädrich ***@***.***> wrote:
until someone steps up to say “we plan to build something using this data”?
In the spirit of asking questions:
Who is considered the authority here: Programmers who use schema.org or
schema.org itself?
Schema.org is a dictionary, more or less. And it prioritises entries that
are used by systems, people, products, tools in ways that do something
hopefully useful for real people. Some of the people involved in using
schema.org-structured data are programmers, … but others are designers,
product managers, technical writers, activists, business people, managers
etc.
Should we just start with unstructured “pronoun-oriented” text
…
That would at least be some kind of start 👍🏻
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3272 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGOIH5LDEUQW4IIC5YTYRLEF5AVCNFSM6AAAAAAVJTR3CWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMRQGEZTINRRGU>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Fixes #2935 and #2925
Inspired by #1112