Schema.org property cardinality and use of plural (WAS Re: SoftwareApplication proposal for schema.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">
<ul>
  <li itemprop="operatingSystems">OSX 10.6</li>
  <li itemprop="operatingSystems">Windows 7</li>
</ul>

This was previously brought up in Issue
5<http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/5>,
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?

-Lin

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/>

lin-clark.com
twitter.com/linclark