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

Re: ItemList proposal

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 20:35:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6qPaHhNZP6H2L6QJVz-A5KB3xHqB588HSqpZ4RYm0eYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
On 6 Sep 2014 20:21, "Vicki Tardif Holland" <vtardif@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>> Any feedback on my proposal for ListItem only being used as a Multi-Type
Entity and dropping the 'item' property on ListItem? (
> Forgive me; I knew there was something in this area I was missing.
> I like the idea. There are many places we should encourage using multiple

I like multiple types. I believe in this case the indirection has value
since the ListItem can carry ordering information without it being merged
in with other different ordering properties being used with the same real
world item. These issues were responsible for RSS1's awkward use of an rdf
sequence structure BTW.

That said I'm on mobile phone now So verifying the concern is tricky


The example I keep coming back to is I may have an Offer to sell a book, at
which point, I may want to use both the Book type and the Product type on
the same entity. Authors don't seem to use multiple types much, but I
wonder if that is because we don't give them clear examples of how and when
to do that.
> Perhaps this is a good time to force multiple types on the same entity.
> - Vicki
> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
Received on Saturday, 6 September 2014 19:35:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:44 UTC