Re: schema.org/WebPageElement and it's subTypes

Yeah, I don't understand the utility of WP* either. I don't know the
history of how they got added.

Navigational links and breadcrumbs feel like a different category to me as
they describe the characteristics/categories of an entire site.

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "SiteNavigationElement (a subtype of WebPageElement) is widely adopted"
>
>
> So are WPHeader, WPSideBar and WPFooter but is there also any insight into
> how they are used?
>
> I've often seen these elements marked up without any properties specified
> for them, and those that do specify properties often do this in a very
> inconsistent/creative manner, which is probably due to the fact there are
> no examples showing how they should be used.
>
> But before talking about adding examples I'd first like to know whether
> there's any sense in specifying these Types, isn't this indeed mark up for
> markup's sake, or are data consumer actually interested in knowing about a
> page's WebPageElements?
>
> "Odd to me, though, that BreadCrumbList is not a WebPageElement"
>
>
> I'd have to do my best to look up what was said about that in one of the
> many discussions about ItemList but it has to do with ItemList no longer
> being a CreativeWork.
>
> 2015-05-19 20:08 GMT+02:00 Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>:
>
>> SiteNavigationElement (a subtype of WebPageElement) is widely adopted.
>> Odd to me, though, that BreadCrumbList is not a WebPageElement as it's a
>> similar use case (just connected to WebPage via breadcrumb property).
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:33 AM Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Now that mainEntity/mainEntityOfPage are out of the way I'd like to
>>> bring up schema.org/WebPageElement, it's subTypes and the
>>> 'mainContentOfPage' property.
>>>
>>> For a long time I've been wondering whether or not there's any sense in
>>> marking these elements up as they describe the HTML elements on a page,
>>> rather than the underlying real world entity that is described by other
>>> markup. On top of that their schema.org pages provide no examples on
>>> how to use them nor do they seem to have been worked out such that they are
>>> easy to specify.
>>>
>>> For example, if I markup an event widget as a schema.org/WebPageElement,
>>> how would I indicate the widget contains an schema.org/Event - should I
>>> use 'about', 'mentions' or 'mainEntity'? And what if a WebPageElement
>>> contains multiple entities, should I then use 'about' or 'mentions' or do
>>> we need a new property for this?
>>>
>>> And what about the relation between WebPage and WebPageElement? 'about',
>>> 'mentions', 'hasPart', 'contains' have all been proposed in the past but
>>> neither of 'm got any large scale support by the participants of the
>>> mailing list. Meaning that until thus far there doesn't seem to exist any
>>> valid method for chaining WebPageElement to WebPage or chaining
>>> WebPageElement to the entity/entities it contains.
>>>
>>> Dan Brickley once even expressed he was wondering whether these Types
>>> aren't a form of markup for markup's sake as opposed to providing any
>>> serious value. A point of view which I've step by step have grown to agree
>>> with and therefor I wonder, might it be an idea to deprecate WebPageElement
>>> (and its subTypes)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>