- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:19:07 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 30 October 2011 08:09, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > 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 :) Ok, should I go ahead and put 'add a type property' into the Schema.org todo list pipeline, or should we wait? It sounds worthwhile, but if there is some prospect that the underlying syntaxes (RDFa, Microdata) will change to make this easier, then maybe it won't be needed? Dan
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 08:19:45 UTC