W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: working of schema.org/WebPage

From: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:01:11 +0200
Message-ID: <535E26E7.9050802@gmail.com>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
CC: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Le 28/04/2014 10:00, Jarno van Driel a écrit :
> I always understood that defining the subject of a page is something
> different as it's 'main' content. I for example use 'about' as such:
>
> <body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org_/CollectionPage_
> <http://schema.org/CollectionPage>">
>      <div itemprop="about"  itemscope
> itemtype="http://schema.org/_Thing_ <http://schema.org/Thing>">
>          <span itemprop="name">Appels</span>
>      </div>
>
>      <div itemscope itemtype http://schema.org/ImageObject>
>          <span itemprop="name">Granny Smith</span>
>      </div>
>
>      <div itemscope itemtype http://schema.org/ImageObject>
>          <span itemprop="name">Royal Gala</span>
>      </div>
>
>      <div itemscope itemtype http://schema.org/ImageObject>
>          <span itemprop="name">Pink Lady</span>
>      </div>
> </body>
>
> though I'd like to able to express:
>
>      <div itemprop="mainContentOfPage" itemscope itemtype
> http://schema.org/ImageObject>
>          <span itemprop="name">Granny Smith</span>
>      </div>
>

It's not really clear at all how to use the "about" prop, especially on 
an ItemPage :)

But basically in your example the <span itemprop="name">Appels</span> 
could be attached directly to the "CollectionPage".

But I agree I use it more like a "mainContentOfPage" property.

A clarification on how to use it would be really helpfull.



>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jocelyn Fournier
> <jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com <mailto:jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Le 20/04/2014 22:05, Jarno van Driel a écrit :
>
>              "It sounds like you have a reasonable argument for that!"
>
>
>         Thanks for the support. What is the actual status of the the
>         Periodical
>         proposal by the way? Is it a done deal,does it only need votes,
>         or are
>         there still open issues?
>
>         Because if there still are issues, it would make sense to me to
>         include
>         this in the Periodical proposal as well. It seems a waste of
>         time and
>         energy to me to expand to CreativeWork first only to be followed by
>         expanding it to Thing. We might as well do it in go.
>
>         And if that's an option, I'll be more than happy to help. Just
>         let me
>         know what I can do.
>
>
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Another issue with schema.org/WebPage <http://schema.org/WebPage> :
>     the use of the "about" property.
>     For me the right way to markup an ItemPage about a product is :
>
>     <body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/__ItemPage
>     <http://schema.org/ItemPage>">
>
>     <div itemprop="about" class="container" itemscope
>     itemtype="http://schema.org/__Product <http://schema.org/Product>">
>     [...]
>
>     However, the use of itemprop="about" completely remove the rich
>     snippets related to the product. (if I remove itemprop="about", the
>     snippet appears again).
>
>     e.g. :
>     http://www.google.com/__webmasters/tools/richsnippets?__q=uploaded:__8004f8158d05057c17d7e28209fa18__2d
>     <http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004f8158d05057c17d7e28209fa182d>
>
>     But perhaps I'm wrong here ?
>
>     Thanks,
>        Jocelyn Fournier
>
>
>
>
>
>         On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net
>         <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>
>         <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>>> wrote:
>
>              On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 08:38:33PM +0200, Jarno van Driel
>         wrote:
>
>                  "...might be of interest to you."
>                  I've been trying to follow along with that thread as
>         much as I
>                  can but I
>                  find it difficult due to it's complexity. Now I just
>         read the
>                  proposal and
>                  it seems actually makes sense to me, so I was
>         wondering, is this
>                  the final
>                  draft?
>
>                  And to pull in something from that proposal: @isPartOf
>         and @hasPart.
>
>                  Looking at the current proposal for adding a reverse
>         mechanism
>                  to Microdata
>
>         (https://www.w3.org/wiki/____WebSchemas/InverseProperties
>         <https://www.w3.org/wiki/__WebSchemas/InverseProperties>
>                  <https://www.w3.org/wiki/__WebSchemas/InverseProperties
>         <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/InverseProperties>>) and
>
>                  imagining it
>                  gets accepted, would @hasPart still be needed? RDFa,
>         MIcrodata
>                  and JSON-LD
>                  all would be able to express the opposite of @isPartOf. Or
>                  should it stay
>                  part of the proposal simply to make life easier for
>         those who
>                  are looking
>                  for a property like @hasPart and aren't aware of the
>         existence
>                  of a reverse
>                  mechanism?
>
>
>              _If_ Microdata adds a reverse mechanism, then inverse
>         properties would
>              not be necessary. We would change the examples to
>         demonstrate the
>              use of the reverse mechanism so that those who aren't aware
>         of the
>              existence of a reverse mechanism would become aware of them
>         in a useful
>              context!
>
>              However, when we created the Periodical proposal in late
>         2013, the
>              Microdata spec had been relatively static (no significant
>         changes since
>              late 2012, with the exception of the "Converting HTML to
>         JSON" section)
>              and we were under the impression that the schema.org
>         <http://schema.org>
>              <http://schema.org> partners were only
>
>              parsing the RDFa Lite portion of the RDFa spec (which
>         wouldn't include
>              @rev). Proposals can only reflect their contexts :)
>
>
>                  Now I recall, you and Karen Coyle saying something
>         about using
>                  @hasPart for
>                  WebPageElements in a previous thread by Martin Hepp (
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/____Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/____0091.html
>         <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/__0091.html>
>
>         <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/__0091.html
>         <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0091.html>>),
>
>                  and
>                  like I said in that thread, I am quite ok with using
>         @*Part* for
>                  this.
>                  Makes perfect sense to me to do it like that.
>
>                  But I don't hink having @mainContentOfPage bound to
>         CreativeWork
>                  is enough.
>                  Many sites describe a Product, Event, MedicalProcedure,
>         etc, all
>                  types
>                  which aren't part of CreativeWork, yet which are marked up
>                  because they are
>                  the main entity of that page. After all most sites
>         don't go any
>                  further
>                  with their markup than that.
>
>
>              Right, we were focused on the needs of the Periodical
>         proposal, where
>              CreativeWork appeared to be the appropriate domain and
>         range for hasPart
>              / isPartOf.
>
>              So perhaps another proposal with different requirements
>         would recommend
>              an even broader range for isPartOf, so that Event and
>         MedicalProcedure
>              could be properly accommodated as well (although part of me
>         wants to
>              make MedicalProcedure, with all of its Text properties, a
>         subclass of
>              CreativeWork...) It sounds like you have a reasonable
>         argument for that!
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 April 2014 10:01:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC