Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

My 2 cents:

I'd say that microdata support for multiple types from different vocabularies is something we should be pursuing (or at least, someone should!) primarily because schema.org doesn't seem to be stable yet.

My understanding is that schema.org's vocabulary is evolving and iterating (though I can't cite this;  I've just tried to search for "schema.org" on Google News, and every bit of markup in the most recent articles are flooding the search results!).  But assuming that is indeed the case, support for multiple types on one entity will help accommodate any transition processes (especially from an existing vocabulary to schema.org's, which could be bumpy as it grows).  It should also help microdata users minimise the amount of disruption they face as this happens.

And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the variety of vocabularies we have accommodate different meanings, semantic relationships, and topics;  I think limiting microdata users to one vocabulary severely restricts their ability to make markup work for them.

So I'm in favour of an effort around that (wherever it best sits).  Beyond that, the note looks good to me.

Cheers,

    Hadley


Hadley Beeman
LinkedGov
hadley@linkedgov.org

On 14 Nov 2011, at 10:27, Jeni Tennison wrote:

> 
> On 14 Nov 2011, at 09:58, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On 14 November 2011 10:04, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> - I think the 'typing' issue is still unresolved. I continue to believe that allowing multiple types in microdata, either within itemtype or with a different microdata attribute, would be important, and any other solution (eg, schema.org/type) is just a hack. I realize that there is a stiff opposition to this, but it merits a line in the report.
>>> - is it worth referring to RDFa Lite?
>> 
>> Yes, multiple types came up a few times at the Schema.org workshop as
>> something that aids decentralisation, vocab mixing and richer
>> description...
> 
> 
> I will add to the note that we have discussed supporting multiple types in microdata with Hixie and he is not convinced of the requirement, so we have documented the workarounds that are available to microdata users at [1].
> 
> As I understand the HTML WG process, I think that if we wanted to push on this further it would require us to raise an explicit bug on supporting multiple types in microdata. When that was formally resolved without change (as it will be) we would then have to write a change proposal.
> 
> The job of this TF is to document how the syntaxes can be used together. The bug reports that we raise should be focused on making it easier to work with more than one syntax in concert, or to move between them. In some ways, the more focused each syntax is the easier it is for us to make clear recommendations about choosing between them such as those at [2].
> 
> What do people here think? Is microdata support for multiple types from different vocabularies something that we should be pursuing more aggressively? Are there any volunteers for writing a change proposal and shepherding it through the HTML WG process?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeni
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Mixing_HTML_Data_Formats#Mixing_Vocabularies_in_microdata
> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Choosing_an_HTML_Data_Format#Syntax_Considerations
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
> 
>

Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 19:31:51 UTC