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

Re: Multiple types from different vocabularies (ACTION-7)

From: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:00:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CACho_AtPF4BSZ7pYQ5EAH0aJSE=vvJi8o7E=3M9K1pHKoaVb8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, public-html-data-tf@w3.org
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>wrote:

> 4. A global property. This could be rdf:type or we could recommend that the
> W3C define an equivalent property but with a more approachable URI, such as
> 'http://w3.org/ns/global/type'. In your example, that would mean:
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
>  <link itemprop="http://w3.org/ns/global/type"
>       href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Hammer" />
>  <link itemprop="http://w3.org/ns/global/type"
>        href="http://example.org/my_ontology.owl#Tool" />
> <!-- other schema.org properties go in here -->
> </div>
> This has the advantage of having a consistent way of adding types, but
> makes the markup more cluttered than the previous solutions. However easy
> you make the URL for the type, it's always going to be something that people
> have to work to remember; given it'll be cut-and-pasted anyway, you might as
> well use the existing rdf:type rather than inventing something with an
> equivalent semantics.

I like this suggestion a lot. The only thing I disagree with is the
reasoning about the URL. For example, something like
http://www.org/typewould be easy to remember, and it has the advantage
www.org is owned by the W3C.

If the W3C were open to using that domain for simple glue terms for
microdata vocabularies, then I think it would be pretty intuitive for
users... the global properties for the web being at www makes intuitive

Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 10:01:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:05 UTC