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

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

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:13:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-Lpa618A8SAyRc4hKqKjkt95LbGzKAm8eGe1p3QtKO=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, public-html-data-tf@w3.org
I am all in favor of creating http://schema.org/type

guha

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>wrote:

> Ivan,
>
> Could you find out whether the W3C would be amenable to hosting a
> vocabulary directly at www.org, to provide support for really common
> global properties and types, such as http://www.org/type as suggested
> below?
>
> Dan, Guha,
>
> Another possibility to help cases where people want to use types from their
> own specialised vocabularies would be to define a http://schema.org/typeproperty. That URI is also fairly clean and could be abbreviated to "type"
> in microdata where schema.org is being used (which is going to be the
> majority of microdata, I imagine). What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeni
>
> On 15 Oct 2011, at 11:00, Lin Clark wrote:
> > 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 that
> 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
> sense.
> >
> > -Lin
>
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>
>
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 18:14:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 15 October 2011 18:14:58 GMT