W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Proposal: Looking inside tables

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:38:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFoc7x6uK7imiVeBLwP7XCYWMMA11XMWhEF=HossMXjZEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Omar Benjelloun (عمر بنجلون) <benjello@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
On 14 August 2013 16:17, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quick feedback Omar and others,
>
> <table typeof="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/">
>
> I would rather see "typeof" be renamed to "rowstypeof" or simply
> "rowstype" to truly indicate that all the rows themselves have the implied
> type and not the Table Set type or class.  This way we can reserve the
> Table "typeof" for higher kinded types, classes, and categories if need be ?
>
> My thinking and expression would look something like this :
>
> <table typeof="Artwork" rowstype="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/">
>
> cooler ideas also embedding the use of  http://schema.org/Class :
>
> <table category="OnSale" class="Artwork" rowstype="Painting" vocab="
> http://schema.org/">
>
> Thoughts ?
>

This would mean changes/additions to RDFa. And then we'd have to figure out
the equivalent in JSON-LD, Microdata etc etc. So it is appealing to do the
modeling as a pure vocabulary, rather than by new HTML attributes...

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 15:39:24 UTC

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