Add a "Notes" Section

[JoshuaPettus]

I do not know if this is part of the JSON+LD schema; probably not. But often when I'm manually entering in a recipe from a book or non-conforming webpage, there are Tips and Tricks or important information that go outside of the the normal step by step process. It would be great if there were a dedicated place I can put the information. Right now I'm sticking it in Tools, if it's unused or trying to embed it in the steps...

[christianlupus]

@JoshuaPettus I think this is very close to #8, right?
I suspect this is a duplicate but if not, please work out the difference.

[JoshuaPettus]

Not really, I'm not talking about user comments with likes, emojis, and what not... This is still a part of the recipe. A section that is in many cookbooks. Like your tools section. Heck if you just duplicated that and renamed it Notes, that would be fitting.

I'll give an example. I have a recipe for pretzels. In the instructions it tells you to optionally put it boiling water with baking soda. In margin there are notes about pitfalls with the baking soda process and things to watch out for that go outside the step by step process, but are still good to know if you want it to turn out right.

[Donatzsky]

Have been meaning to add this feature request myself :)

This is not like #8. As @JoshuaPettus says, this is for notes that are part of the recipe itself. Typically extra information that doesn't fit into the regular instructions, such as variations and things to watch out for.

Here's a good example: https://www.madbanditten.dk/2014/09/06/chia-knaekbroed/

[christianlupus]

I think you missed the point in #8. This is about comments. No rating (#323). So I am not talking about

user comments with likes, emojis, and what not.

In fact, I was looking through the schema standard and did not find a notes section directly mentioned there. Either the information is considered user-contributed in which case they should be considered a Comment.

One could use the text property but this is not quite correct as it will not contain the complete recipe. Another option would be hasPart.

The other option was to define something on ourselves. I have to look into this how this might work out.

One major question from my side: Should the "comments" be associated with the recipe as-it-is or with individual recipe instruction steps? The instruction steps can be modelled as CreativeWork instances that can have Comments.

[JoshuaPettus]

What about the example that is in Donatzsky's post? It seems in that example there is some sort of precedent for Notes, unless they did something outside the standard? If I'm understanding correctly, comments are created after the recipe has been created correct? That's not very useful to the creator of the recipe who has the extra information they themselves want to put in. Unless he later after the recipe has been made, puts in the comment himself? It's rather ugly if you ask me.

I do not know if it's a good idea to tie a "Comment" to an individual step. In my mind that would only hinder the flexibility of the Note. As Dontazsky describes, often such notes can contain variations of the whole process

[christianlupus]

I evaluated/extracted the JSON from the page semi-manually. The result of the process shows that the notes are not part of the JSON data. (Or did I completely miss it? I am not able to speak Danish, sorry).

The thing is: These notes are part of the page as any other part visible. For example, the page header and footer are visible but of course not part of the recipe. Even more, the comments could be part of the recipe but the JSON does not cover them as well.

So, this information currently cannot be automatically extracted from that page.

This does however not mean, that we cannot support something in this direction. As such things tend to get overly complex over time, I wanted to be sure we are on the same page. If we introduced more complexity, it should be useful if you understand what I mean.

I have multiple ideas on how to get there. One could be to extend the schema.org standard. I am not fluent enough with their way of thinking to give an answer right away. I need to work this out.
As a fallback, one could use the meta JSON as discussed in #340 to store this as additional data.

Anyway, this might take some time to be honest as there is not much manpower at the moment driving the project forward. These changes need some cleanup upfront, which means additional time before the main work can begin. So if anyone is willing/capable to help, please comment.

[JoshuaPettus]

Thank you for the detailed reply. That makes total sense. I only wish I had the skills you need. :(

[github-actions]

This issue was not updated for 45 days. It is therefore marked as stale. When no update occurs within the next 7 days, this issue will be closed automatically in the next 7 days.

[github-actions]

This issue was not updated since it was marked as stale. It will be closed now.

[JoshuaPettus]

Can this be reopened? It's still a valid feature request? Or is there some other sort of mechanism that keeps track these things?