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

When Text is expected I would say that both string and distinct markup 
should be allowed. Asa such the below may work too:
<div itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication">
<p itemprop="operatingSystems">OSX 10.6, Windows 7</p>
...
</div>

and a potential Schema processor should be advised. Of course, this can 
solved much better  by introducing cardinalities on Schema.org
Introducing cardinalities will not put any pressure on possible existent 
Schema.org consumers.
However, one should be advised that object oriented software design has 
a long tradition on using plural to introduce collections of things.

-Adrian  Giurca


On 2/24/2012 4:33 PM, Lin Clark wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Adrian, all,
>
>     On 24 February 2012 15:14, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de
>     <mailto: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
>     <http://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 <http://lin-clark.com>
> twitter.com/linclark <http://twitter.com/linclark>
>