W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2013

Re: [whatwg] itemtypes from same vocabulary

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:29:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CABzDd=6C_WQo9uyVowX+tBGvijMGx7VRvbeoRQKtaF4uHwduBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Hi Lin,

I'm confused because it looks like Microdata currently allows multiple
itemtypes to be expressed:

"""
The itemtype attribute, if specified, must have a value that is an
unordered set of unique space-separated tokens that are
case-sensitive, each of which is a valid URL that is an absolute URL,
and all of which are defined to use the same vocabulary. The
attribute's value must have at least one token. [1]
"""

I am seeking clarification about what is meant by 'same vocabulary',
the rationale, and whether it can be relaxed.

//Ed

[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#items

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
> Itemtype cannot reference different vocabs. Here are two relevant
> discussions that I know of, one with Hixie and the other with the HTML Data
> Task Force.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2011Jun/0364.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0072.html
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am looking for some guidance about the use of multiple itemtypes in
>> microdata [1], specifically the phrase "defined to use the same
>> vocabulary" in:
>>
>> """
>> The item types must all be types defined in applicable specifications
>> and must all be defined to use the same vocabulary.
>> """
>>
>> For example, does this mean that I can't say:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://acme.com/Foo http://zenith.com/Bar"> ...
>> </div>
>>
>> The reason I ask is that there is some desire over in the schema.org
>> community [2] to provide a mechanism for schema.org to be specialized.
>> For example, in the case of an audiobook:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book
>> http://www.productontology.org/id/Audiobook"> ... </div>
>>
>> The idea being not to overload schema.org with more vocabulary, and to
>> let vocabularies grow a bit more organically. This schema.org group is
>> currently thinking of using a one off property additionalType that
>> would be used like so:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Book">
>>   <link itemprop="additionalType"
>> href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Audiobook">
>>   ...
>> </div>
>>
>> I personally find this to be kind of distasteful since it replicates
>> the mechanics that microdata's itemtype already offers.
>>
>> So, my question: is it the case that itemtype cannot reference types
>> in different vocabularies like the example above? If so, I'm curious
>> to know what the rationale was, and if perhaps it could be relaxed.
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#items
>> [2]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Feb/0000.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lin Clark
> Drupal Consultant
>
> lin-clark.com
> twitter.com/linclark
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 16:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:19 UTC