- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:38:07 +0100
- To: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Simon: We are in agreement: Even if the Microdata spec is hard to chance for political reasons, the sponsors of schema.org can agree to, uhm, interprete it in a flexible way and improve it in some details by the sheer power of control over the dominant vocabulary and consuming clients ;-) Martin On 26 Mar 2015, at 18:30, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2015 10:51 AM, "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@unibw.de> wrote: > > > Note, however, that MTE in microdata are problematic, because additionalType does not formally make the properties from that second type valid properties for the entity, according to the Microdata spec, because the vocabulary of the main type defines the finite list of properties available for that type. Thus an MTE in Microdata cannot formally have the properties from that second type. > > One can either take the glory that is sec. 5.3 and let it be a noose to strange oneself, or treat it as more than enough rope to sail to better shores. > > The only limits are those a vocabulary specification sets for itself. A specification can define itself for IRIs starting with "". Discard the standard rdf config file (until the RDF spec is changed to allow for longest match semantics). > Handle schema.org specially- that's what 90% of the microdata to RDF spec is for. You have to work magic on it anyway to make sense of the literals. > > A vocabulary specification can give you power. This email is a vocabulary specification. Use your power responsibly. > > Simon >
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 17:39:19 UTC