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

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

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:09:37 +0000
Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5EB86561-4198-44E8-9D90-19EFE26F0CCB@jenitennison.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Dan,

On 30 Oct 2011, at 07:00, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Can I take a sanity-check-break here? So I'm missing something basic
> from all this:
> 
> Does the extra 'type' relationship used here actually mean anything
> different from
> 
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type ?

No.

> ...or is the main purpose to have shorter URIs syntactically?  Both
> because the 1999 URI is long, and because Microdata  makes certain
> things easier (shorter) if a property is in the same namespace as the
> currently-focal type.

Exactly.

> In other words, are documents using this new 'type' true descriptions
> of the world under exactly the same circumstances as if the 1999 RDF
> 'type' URI had been used?

Yes.

> If so, I understand things. If not, I'm missing some story.

You got it.

> Re Schema.org, Guha has said he's willing to add a 'type' property; if
> the story is as above, and 'type' would just be a convenient alias
> within Schema.org vocab for benefit of authors of Schema.org-centric
> markup, then I support that too.

Good :)

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:13:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:14:00 GMT