On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:
> I believe, to not force a format change (Microdata to say RDFa) to enable
a sizeable community to use this, we need to define properties to describe
ordering - in the same way that the additionalType property on Thing is
there for the Microdata folks to do something that RDFa can do natively.
+1. Deciding not to go down a particular developmental path in
schema.orgbecause that path is deemed to be unwise, unnecessary or too
much in
support of an edge case is, I think, a legitimate decision. Deciding not
to go down a particular developmental path in schema.org because there's a
mechanism available in *just one or two* of the three officially supported
methods of using schema.org is a very slippery slope indeed.
Relying on syntax-specific solutions to any schema.org problem potentially
places an additional burden on webmasters insofar as they're forced to
become knowledgeable in a syntax that otherwise doesn't suit their needs
and/or force them to modify publishing mechanisms (such as a content
management system) in order to continue using schema.org to its full
potential.