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

Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:56:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrhqf3N+zRXgO7msTPv6vo-2V8qSGAD5uHLf1aAGOmuiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, jasnell@gmail.com, public-vocabs@w3.org, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
OK folks, I think "that's a wrap". As far as I'm concerned we've
gathered more than enough feedback here on the design choices, and
this thread is straying into more general (and potentially
neverending) discussion.

For the sake of the strained inboxes of everyone on
public-vocabs@w3.org I'd like to close out this thread now.  General
discussion of OWL semantics is welcomed by W3C on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/ (which otherwise
is drowning in 'Call for Papers' postings and might appreciate some
technical discussion).

I expect it most likely schema.org will take the option of a new
property, and most likely the relationship to rdf:type will be
expressed with rdfs:subPropertyOf; I'd like confirmation from Peter
that he can live with this, and we'll work out the documentation
details in the public Wiki rather than huge mail threads.

Thanks everyone for your advice and thoughts,

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 06:57:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:23 UTC