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

Re: Proposal: Looking inside tables

From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:47:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAChbWaNTe5=TXAMMu-BP3ArLtkc_PnoGjwqQXD4RD4PaDcw6bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: (wrong string) ع…ر ب†ج„ˆ†) <benjello@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Dan,

Can you spell out exactly with an example, "what is appealing" ?  Lost in
translation I'm afraid.


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
>



-- 
-Thad
Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 15:48:19 UTC

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