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

Re: ItemList proposal

From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:07:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CADK2AU10JoPwZycT2cjMA7x2QzUMykoFU8orGpAGDhq1u0-Tww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
>
> "For the more creative lists I thing we will need a Type which has both
> ItemList and CreativeWork - a ‘CreativeItemList’ ?"


Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't an MTE like: typeof="CreativeWork
ItemList" resolve this? Although I am aware this wouldn't help resolve the
issue of backwards compatibility with any authored ItemLists in use
already, but looking ahead this could work as well.

"but I wonder if that is because we don't give them clear examples of how
> and when to do that."


I almost know for sure that's the case. Every time I explain MTEs to others
they get it very quickly and go: "but why can't I find anything about it
anywhere? It's a great solution." So a big +1 from me for giving it some
more attention so people become aware of it.

"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 could be, I wouldn't dare to make a statement about it as I'm not
familiar with the issue. My main reason for proposing it is to try to keep
Role out of ItemList. ItemList itself is already complex enough. If we'd
add Role into the mix I'm simply afraid we'll see more failed
implementations than successful ones.

I've prepared a breadcrumb example showing how an Ordered ItemList might
look:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ChainingLayoutElements#Breadcrumbs

Making it I started to wonder if we still need the 'itemListOrder'
property. Because when 'next' and/or 'previous' are provided doesn't this
automatically imply an Ordered List? (same as leaving those out implies an
Unordered list).

Final remark: Could we please remove the 'mainContentOfPage' out of the
example until it has been decided what to do with it?


2014-09-06 21:35 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.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>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Any feedback on my proposal for ListItem only being used as a
> Multi-Type Entity and dropping the 'item' property on ListItem? (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Aug/0112.html)
> >
> >
> > 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 types.
>
> 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
>
> Dan
>
> 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 21:08:15 UTC

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