Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:59 AM, 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.)
> 
> 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.

I also agree. The current Microdata to RDF draft works pretty well for single vocabularies, and pretty much handles schema.org property URIs out of the box (although the schema.org extension mechanism require that the vocabulary be registered in a registry or catalog).

Microdata is best suited when the use case is simple, meaning that there is a single vocabulary using a flat namespace for classes and properties and minimal need to support typed literals.

Gregg

> Cheers,
> 
> Jeni
> 
> [1] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/161
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
> 
>

Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 18:57:45 UTC