- From: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 08:31:43 -0500
- To: Tyler Shuster <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com>
- Cc: SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Tyler: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Tyler Shuster <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com> wrote: > Dan, > > Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense. According to the whatwg > spec, "The item types of an item are the tokens obtained by splitting the > element's itemtype attribute's value on spaces. If the itemtype attribute is > missing or parsing it in this way finds no tokens, the item is said to have > no item types." > > Is there anything keeping me from changing your fourth line to: <div > itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product > http://schema.org/Service">? While I understand that "Product" can also > refer to a service, I don't find it as semantic. That would be perfectly valid, yep. I think Martin gave the best description of the whitespace-delimited itemtype attribute vs. use of the additionalType property at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/0114.html - to summarize crudely, you can mix types in the itemtype attribute if they all come from the same vocabulary, while additionalType lets you pull in types from other vocabularies. For example, you could use additionalType to reference a ProductOntology type for computer repair services in your markup: something like http://www.productontology.org/id/Computer_repair I suppose you could use itemtype="Product Service" _and_ additionalType="http://www.productontology.org/id/Computer_repair" if you wanted to use be as specific as possible within schema.org vocab for those processors that might be limited to only understanding schema.org, for whatever reason, while adding precision for those processors that also understand ProductOntology or other vocabularies... Dan
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 13:32:31 UTC