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

Re: working of schema.org/WebPage

From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:20:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbY27Dwyks-SuGYJyXM4goEFSpp1sE2XGYaHkbA3FDZhyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com>
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>
For an ItemPage that contains a Product I would use @about to define the
Product category (if there is one). For example:

<body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ItemPage">
    <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Thing">
        <span itemprop="name">Laptops</span>
        <link itemprop="sameAs" href="http://www.freebase.com/m/01c648">
    </div>

    <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
        [...product details...]
    <div>
</body>

Now I consider the subject of a WebPage to be something different than the
objects it contains, yet that's how I interpret this property. I agree that
the schema.org site could use more examples of how to use @about (when not
using it in combination with a CreativeWork) but the same most definitely
can also be said about how to use WebPage and WebPageElement.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jocelyn Fournier <
jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 10:21:24 UTC

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