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

Re: new itemscope or not?

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:00:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CABzDd=6fNabJD7cESnSk4dgNFnkmEJ6+=M2enrwS-zgCN=gi=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Cord Wiljes
<cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> Only something that can be downloaded (an information resource) can have a
> URL. So schema.org's property "url" should only be available for
> "CreativeWork", not for "Thing" as it is right now. A person for example
> can't have a url. A person can have a website (which is an information
> resource) and this website has an url. But then I cannot find any property
> like "website" or "homepage" for any of schema.org's classes. Combined with
> the fact that "url" is avalable for class "Thing" (i.e. for everything) I
> suppose that "url" is in fact used ambiguosly:

So the doc for Person [1] says url is inherited from Thing, and is the
"URL of the item." If the item is a Person in this case, the Person
can have a URL. Does it really need to be more complicated than that?

One of the reasons why HTML Microdata and Schema.org are appealing to
me is that they don't currently seem to be encumbered with
httpRange-14 language. It would be sad to see a lack of understanding
of REST and the same debates from the Linked Data space infect the
schema.org and hmlt5 microdata specifications. This is something I
will strongly resist as best I can as a web developer.

//Ed

[1] http://schema.org/Person
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:00:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:00:50 GMT