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 14:36:04 -0700
Message-ID: <5249EEC4.9050000@kcoyle.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
CC: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>

On 9/30/13 12:27 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> It is purely another way of writing rdf:type. Any pair of things that
> are related by rdf:type could equally well be described as being
> related by schema:additionalType.

Thanks, Dan. I didn't realize that additionalType had the sense of 
rdf:type. Then I second Richard Wallis' question on how the previous 
discussion of declaring multiple itemtypes relates to additionalType. Or 
are we providing equal but varied approaches that essentially have the 
same result? Could that lead to confusion?


In the sense that RDF's
> types/classes are useful for categorisation, then so is this
> mechanism. But maybe there's a subtle difference in how you're using
> the word 'categorize' that I'm not picking up on?
> Dan

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 21:36:33 UTC

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