W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:40:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+ZSDAtxzuPs=KQYwR59ukHQ5ZwAhTnLzNtQhgDQGo=Eqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Hi Hadley,

On 14 November 2011 20:37, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org> wrote:
> My 2 cents:
>
> I'd say that microdata support for multiple types from different vocabularies is something we should be pursuing (or at least, someone should!) primarily because schema.org doesn't seem to be stable yet.
>
> My understanding is that schema.org's vocabulary is evolving and iterating (though I can't cite this;  I've just tried to search for "schema.org" on Google News, and every bit of markup in the most recent articles are flooding the search results!).  But assuming that is indeed the case, support for multiple types on one entity will help accommodate any transition processes (especially from an existing vocabulary to schema.org's, which could be bumpy as it grows).  It should also help microdata users minimise the amount of disruption they face as this happens.

Yes, Schema.org is still growing. We have a sibling group to this one,
the W3C Web Schemas group, and its mailing list,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/  is the main public
feedback channel for Schema.org now. See
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/webschema.html and nearby (wiki,
issue tracker etc). There isn't yet a fully worked out plan for
evolution but the general approach is to work in public, document
ideas and proposals in the wiki.

> And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the variety of vocabularies we have accommodate different meanings, semantic relationships, and topics;  I think limiting microdata users to one vocabulary severely restricts their ability to make markup work for them.
>
> So I'm in favour of an effort around that (wherever it best sits).  Beyond that, the note looks good to me.

Yes, a single vocabulary can never cover everything fully, that is
very clear. The schema.org hope is that many common use cases can be
addressed by its base vocabulary, and many other can be handled as
extra properties attached to the outline it provides.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 19:41:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 November 2011 19:41:19 GMT