Inverse Properties in Microdata:, was Re: schema.org update, v1.8: added WebSite type; broadened isPartOf to relate CreativeWorks

There is a fully-fledged proposal to add inverse properties to microdata:

    https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/InverseProperties

(as Jarno knows, for he was involved in the discussion ;-)

Maybe we can ask Dan to look into this matter again? It would really help to have this feature.

Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Martin Hepp


On 01 Aug 2014, at 00:40, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:

> "I notice you don’t have an itemprop attribute in your first <div> element.  Was that intentional?"
> 
> That would only have been possible if 'hasPart' (which isn't part of the specification) could have been used (or itemprop-reverse="isPartOf").
> 
> Because there is no inverse property of 'isPartOf', nor a reverse mechanism for microdata, Juraj is bound to chain the entities together by making use of <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="[itemid-value]">.
> 
> A cumbersome method, that now can be applied where it first couldn't. All be it but one that can be improved still.
> 
> 
> 2014-07-31 17:52 GMT+02:00 Jason Johnson (BING) <jasjoh@microsoft.com>:
> I notice you don’t have an itemprop attribute in your first <div> element.  Was that intentional?
> 
>  
> 
> From: Juraj Kabát [mailto:kabat.juraj@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:08 AM
> To: public-vocabs@w3.org
> Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force
> Subject: Re: schema.org update, v1.8: added WebSite type; broadened isPartOf to relate CreativeWorks
> 
>  
> 
> When Ill try to add isPartOf property to ItemList, Im getting this warning:
> 
> WARNING: isPartOf field not specified in http://schema.org/ItemList
> 
> Example snippet:
> <body itemid="#WebPage" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/CollectionPage">
>     <div class="products" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ItemList">
>         <meta content="Unordered" itemprop="itemListOrder">
>         <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage">
> 
>         <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope itemprop="itemListElement">
>         <img src="[url]" itemprop="image">
>         <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span itemprop="name">[name]</span></a>
>       <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope itemprop="offers">
>             <span itemprop="price">[price]</span>
>       </span>
>         </div>
> 
>         <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope itemprop="itemListElement">
>         <img src="[url]" itemprop="image">
>         <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span itemprop="name">[name]</span></a>
>       <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope itemprop="offers">
>             <span itemprop="price">[price]</span>
>       </span>
>         </div>
> 
>     </div>
> </body>
> 
> 
> But when Ill add isPartOf property to each ItemListElement, everything works like expected. 
> What am I missing here? ItemList extends CreativeWork as well...
> 
> Why can't I chain whole ItemList to parent but instead of that I have to repeat myself for every element in list?
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Personally I most of all like the addition of WebSite (and it's creative example) as well as the reworked 'isPartOf' most and I've already started to implementing them.  :-)
> 
>  
> 
> But I would have been an even happier camper if 'hasPart' would have been introduced as well. And even though chaining WebSite > WebPage > WebPageElements > CreativeWork now can be achieved, without abusing 'mentions' for this, it unfortunately is quite cumbersome in microdata because one has to use itemid quite a lot, eg:
> 
>  
> 
> <body itemid="#WebPage" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage">
> 
> <nav itemid="#SiteNavigationElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement">
> 
> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage">
> 
> <ul>
> 
> <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage" itemid="#WebPage-1">
> 
> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#SiteNavigationElement">
> 
> <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]">
> 
> <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span>
> 
> </a>
> 
> <ul>
> 
> <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage">
> 
> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage-1" />
> 
> <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]">
> 
> <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span>
> 
> </a>
> 
> </li>
> 
> <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage">
> 
> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage-1" />
> 
> <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]">
> 
> <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span>
> 
> </a>
> 
> </li>
> 
> </ul>
> 
> </li>
> 
> </ul>
> 
> </nav>
> 
> </body>
> 
>  
> 
> I'm still quite pleased with the update is as though.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 2014-07-28 17:43 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>:
> 
>  
> 
> previous update (1.7),
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jul/0012.html
> 
> A small schema.org update just went live:
> 
> 1. We add a new CreativeWork type, "WebSite"
> 
> http://schema.org/WebSite
> 
> "A WebSite is a set of related web pages and other items typically
> served from a single web domain and accessible via URLs."
> 
> The example shows the use of this with SearchAction.
> 
> 2. We adopt the proposal made by the bibextend group and other
> collaborators, to broaden isPartOf. It now relates any CreativeWork to
> any other CreativeWork
> 
> http://schema.org/isPartOf
> 
> see also https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works
> 
> 3. Potential Actions documentation
> 
> The previously PDF-only Potential Actions document is now on the site in HTML:
> 
> http://schema.org/docs/actions.html
> 
> 4. Adopted some markup fixes from Stephane Corlosquet (thanks!)
> 
> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/71
> 
> 5. Improved consistency of encoding / associatedMedia description
> (thanks Dan Scott!)
> 
> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/35
> 
> 6. Updated some out-of-date sections of the FAQ: it now mentions
> Yandex appropriately, acknowledges that there's life beyond Microdata
> (i.e. RDFa, JSON-LD), and doesn't talk about "version 0.9 draft" any
> more.
> 
>  https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/69
> 
> Thanks all :)
> 
> Dan
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 06:52:50 UTC