W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2012

Schema.org property cardinality and use of plural (WAS Re: SoftwareApplication proposal for schema.org)

From: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:33:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CACho_At4pEjtD2H8OnkoUOLzd40C2k5708JQUdfoirC-KGqn_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Looking at this brought up a previous question. I see that properties such
as operatingSystems are given plural names. However, it could look
confusing in microdata.

For example:

<div itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication">
  <li itemprop="operatingSystems">OSX 10.6</li>
  <li itemprop="operatingSystems">Windows 7</li>

This was previously brought up in Issue
and I pointed out the kinds of confusion using the plural in that way might
cause for content authors. Has there been any further discussion?


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> Hi Adrian, all,
> On 24 February 2012 15:14, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de> wrote:
> > Looking on what CreativeWork offers to represent software projects I did
> the
> > below example encoding properties both with RDFa 1.1. Lite and
> Microdata. I
> > used DOAP with RDFa and Microdata with Schema. The example is a a bit
> long
> > but may help.
> >
> > In overall I found that  CreativeWork does not define a number of
> specific
> > properties with respect of software work similar with doap:license,
> > doap:release, doap:version, doap:revision.
> >
> > Is @author same as doap:maintainer ? Or, maybe @editor is same as
> > doap:maintainer  I used @discussionUrl same as doap:mailing-list
> >
> > Maybe we need http://schema.org/Software or
> http://schema.org/CreativeWork/Software .
> Good timing and a useful discussion. I have just uploaded a proposal
> for a http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication plus associated
> properties.
> See http://www.w3.org/wiki/SoftwareApplicationSchema in our W3C Wiki
> area. The proposal for now is a PDF attachment, but I've put a brief
> summary in the Wiki page too.
> It is based on the earlier deployment of a Software Application
> vocabulary by the Rich Snippets team at Google, but is not 1:1
> identical with that.
> The scope is not exactly the same; it does not attempt to describe
> opensource projects as such, and (like the rest of schema.org) doesn't
> touch on the topic of license description.
> Comments welcomed here or in the Wiki,
> cheers,
> Dan
> ps. this proposed SoftwareApplication class was discussed briefly back
> in December,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Dec/0059.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Jan/0002.html

Lin Clark
DERI, NUI Galway <http://www.deri.ie/>

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 15:34:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:59 GMT