W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Using Properties Multiple Times

From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:05:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE5C3F1.1070509@tu-cottbus.de>
To: kurt@develohost.com
CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
According with schema.org naming convention I would say there is an 
unique url on a specific itemscope.  HOW your example is processed by a 
Schema.org processor (i.e., if your markup is VALID or not) is subject 
of each processor.
I see at least four cases:
1. Process the first occurrence of "p" and ignore all others.
2. Process all occurrences and   update continuously. As result will 
keep the last one
3. Process all occurrences, collect all "p" values and "resolve".
4. Throw and exception ("multiple values p found on the same itemscope. 
p must be single valued").

To keep consistent with Schema.org naming convention myself I would use 
1 or 2
However, to extract as much RDF triples as they are possible I would use 3
In any case I will not use 4.

You may like to contribute on http://getschema.org
Adrian Giurca

On 12/9/2011 7:31 PM, kurt@develohost.com wrote:
> Let's say I have a reality listing site - is it proper to use 
> something like the URL property multiple times if I have the URL in 
> more than one location? For example:
> <div class="apartment" itemtype="http://schema.org/Residence" itemscope>
> <a itemprop="url" href="http://www.domain.com/ResidencePage">
> <img alt="This is X Residence" itemprop="image" 
> src="http://www.domain.com/XResidence.jpg">
> </a>
> <p itemprop="description">This is Residence X's Description</p>
> <a itemprop="url" href="http://www.domain.com/ResidencePage">
> <h1 itemprop="name">Residence X</h1>
> </a>
> </div>
> See how I link to the residence's page twice in two different 
> locations and use the URL property both times? Once around it's image, 
> and once around it's name; is is valid to use a property twice like 
> this since they are both going to the same place?
> I'm sure it isn't totally necessary, but is it valid?
Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 09:09:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:21 UTC