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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:19:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+boE5PZamckXbD_R1vZv6GwRb4yajirO7B4_cP1-AS5bg@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 30 October 2011 08:19:46 GMT