W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Yahoo's RDF vocabularies

From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:52:12 +0100
Message-ID: <49C0E06C.7010201@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "public-rdfa@w3.org" <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Hi Manu,

I thought I would just address one specific point:

> Yahoo defines both this:
> 	
> media:Image, media:Audio, media:Video
>
> and this:
>
> media:medium - The type of object: image | audio | video | document |
> executable.
>
> What's the point of having both a 'medium' property and classes that
> define the medium? media:medium shouldn't exist at all - use one or the
> other, not both. Using both is confusing and will inevitably lead to
> more pain for Yahoo down the line when you have to look at not only
> @typeof information, but also medium information.
>   

We need this to simplify the life of publishers who want a single line 
to indicate that there is a video attached to the page:

<link rel="media:video" href="...">

which is similar to Facebook Share:

<link rel="video_src" href="...>

 From a site owner point of view this is significantly clearer than 
adding a typeof and thus is much more likely to gain adoption. Note that 
with the RDFa solution the site owner already had to work a bit harder, 
because he/she needed to add the XML namespace.

In summary, I consider this a design pattern, not a bug, even if it 
sacrifices a principle.

Best,
Peter
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:53:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:53:23 GMT