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 12:24:50 -0700
Message-ID: <5249D002.2010806@kcoyle.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
CC: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Guha <guha@google.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>


On 9/30/13 11:24 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 30 September 2013 19:15, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>> Is this not why  'additionalType' was added to Thing?
>
> Yes: Microdata has trouble with the idea of describing an item using
> multiple independently defined types:
>
> " Multiple types defined to use the same vocabulary can be given for a
> single item by listing the URLs as a space-separated list in the
> attribute' value. An item cannot be given two types if they do not use
> the same vocabulary, however." --
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#typed-items
>
> Rather than trying to gradually turn Microdata into something that it
> isn't (i.e. back into RDFa), the schema.org team decided instead to
> add the additionalType property.

I had understood the "additionalType" as mainly having a function of 
categorization -- this thing is both an apple and a fruit. Does the use 
of an additionalType that is a schema.org type provide access to all of 
the properties of the additionalType?

kc


  At the time we noted "In RDFa syntax,
> it is better to use the native RDFa syntax - the 'typeof' attribute -
> for multiple types. Schema.org tools may have only weaker
> understanding of extra types, in particular those defined
> externally.". Despite that I've subsequently heard a few people argue
> that it is nice to know which type is in some informal sense the
> 'main' one, so you could even make a case to use additionalType more
> widely.
>
> Dan
>
>> ~Richard
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2013, at 17:19, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>  From the perspective of the graph that is built (and hopefully, hence the
>> applications of the data), there is no difference.
>>
>> The difference should only be in the DOM.
>>
>> guha
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 19:25:15 UTC

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