- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:25:49 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On Nov 14, 2011, at 11:59 , Jeni Tennison wrote: > Dan, > > On 14 Nov 2011, at 10:44, Dan Brickley wrote: >> It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a more carefully documented use >> case for multiple-types. > > I don't think there is a persuasive one for microdata, particularly as the pattern of use for microdata at the moment is to roll everything into the schema.org vocabulary. From what I can tell, Hixie doesn't even believe that the vocabularies in the WHATWG microdata spec will actually be published or consumed by anyone. (If he did then I'd hope that [1] was sufficient documentation of a use case.) > As an aside: if this is really the way it goes, what this means is that microdata becomes a syntax for encoding schema.org vocabularies. Which is fine with me, actually, after all, RDFa is there for other purposes. But that also means that the microdata->RDF mapping can become much simpler... Ivan > If schema.org recommended extending the set of types that they support not through string concatenation but by publishers minting their own vocabularies, we might have a different picture. Of course, since microdata wouldn't be able to support that, we're kind of in a chicken-and-egg situation! :) > >> But perhaps it's better to to leave Microdata >> as Microdata rather than try to mutate it into RDFa Lite, since we >> already have one of those. Getting the RDF view of Microdata right >> seems more important to me than making Microdata fully RDFish. > > Yes, that's my feeling too. > > Cheers, > > Jeni > > [1] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/161 > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 12:23:21 UTC