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

Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for Schema.org

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:00:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=5PfAkUO=yzPR2HcArXpSeOrcq81d+Fq9yvfQwOuLDfMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 30 April 2014 16:35, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> Hi Jason:
>
> I could live with having this at the position of http://schema.org/Product, and maybe gradually expanding the domain of additionalProperty to relevant other types on demand. Personally I think that having a generic extension mechanism at the level of http://schema.org/Thing is a bit more appealing, but I would not have a problem with starting at a deeper branch and then seing how it develops in the wild.
>
> Dan, Guha - do you have any opinion on this?

I haven't had a chance to have a good look at the new proposals (hello
from an airport...), but when we discussed this during the original
good relations integration, it felt too 'black box', and that treating
propertyy-like-things as properties rather than reifying them might
work better. On that front I wonder whether using JSON-LD could give
more syntactic options than Microdata?

<div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
  <img itemprop="image" src="camera123.jpg" />
  <span itemprop="name">Digital Camera 123</span>
  <div itemprop="additionalProperty" itemscope
itemtype="http://schema.org/PropertyValue">
 <span itemprop="name">Operating Voltage</span>
 <span itemprop="minValue">100</span>-
 <span itemprop="maxValue">250</span>
 <meta itemprop="unitCode" content="VLT">volts
  </div>
</div> from https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/PropertyValuePairs

In JSON-LD:

a)
{ "@context": "http://schema.org",
  "@type": "Product",
  "image": "camera123.jpg",
  "name": "Digital Camera 123",
  "OperatingVoltage": { "minValue": "100", "maxValue": "250", "unitCode": VLT" }
}

vs your

b)
{ "@context": "http://schema.org",
  "@type": "Product",
  "image": "camera123.jpg",
  "name": "Digital Camera 123",
  "additionalProperty": { "name": "Operating Voltage", "minValue":
"100", "maxValue": "250", "unitCode": VLT" }
}

Is (a) really so much easier?

Dan
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2014 00:01:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC