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

Re: Proposal: Audiobook

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:13:02 -0700
Message-ID: <5249A30E.9010303@kcoyle.net>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Thanks, Guha, and pardon my "term dyslexia" re: micro/data/format.

So for audiobooks, would we have:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Audiobook 
http://schema.org/Product">

And/or a nesting of itemtypes:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Audiobook">
  [audiobook information here]
   <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
     [product information here]

In other words, can you "step down" the itemtypes, with the audiobook 
description first, then product information as a subordinate set of data?

Is there a functional difference?

kc

On 9/30/13 8:28 AM, Guha wrote:
> I don't believe microformats have the concept of explicit types.
>
> With microdata, rdfa and json-ld, yes, you can.
>
> guha
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     I believe there was a question about using multiple types in
>     microformat markup which I can't find now, nor an answer. So in case
>     I dreamed it all, I'll rephrase it here: can one use multiple types
>     in a microformat markup, and could someone please provide a brief
>     example?
>
>     Thank you,
>     kc
>
>
>     On 9/26/13 5:46 AM, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote:
>
>
>         On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Martin Hepp
>         <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.__org
>         <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>         <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-__unibw.org
>         <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>> wrote:
>
>              Now, we can take at least two approaches for handling this:
>
>              1. We can use multiple supertypes, i.e. materialize a multiple
>              inheritance relation (e.g. make AudioBook a subtype of both
>              CreativeWorks and Product)
>              2. We can encourage the use of multiple types at markup time.
>
>              I strongly recommend option #2, because
>
>              - it waives the need to define relevant combinations ex ante,
>              - it avoids the irritating listing of properties that are not
>              relevant for most use cases, and
>              - it decouples the evolution of type combinations from the
>         evolution
>              of the schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>
>         specification.
>
>
>
>         Decoupling the evolution of type combinations from the evolution
>         of the
>         specification is an important point. If we have to serve all of
>         the uses
>         of AudioBook (or any other type) in its specification, we are
>         going to
>         end up with a tangle of multiple inheritance and/or duplicate
>         properties
>         which authors will not understand how to use.
>
>         - Vicki
>
>         Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist |vtardif@google.com
>         <mailto:vtardif@google.com>
>         <mailto:vtardif@google.com <mailto:vtardif@google.com>>
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 16:13:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:31 UTC