W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Multiple types from different vocabularies (ACTION-7)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:40:26 +0200
Message-Id: <6C2AD8D8-04B1-4F54-9A46-BF587FF07E8E@w3.org>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Evan Sandhaus <sandhes@nytimes.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philip@foolip.org>, "public-html-data-tf@w3.org" <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
The examples that came up at the schema.org workshop, eg, the good relation one, but I can also think of the multiple different possible types for persons (foaf, schema,org), for example, certainly require the possibility of types coming from different vocabularies. Similar examples might be an rss item that can have a sioc as well as a dublin core type, or an article being a dublin core entity as well as a bibliographic one, a bibliographic item for a book can also be annotated by the library terminology (RDA). Etc.

I see the point that with the current dual role of type (typing and setting the vocabulary) that seems to be difficult with the current microdata spec. Maybe the additional types should be defined through a different attribute that can take a list of uris or terms but without the additional role of setting the vocabulary. Just and idea... 


Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153

On 10 Oct 2011, at 21:23, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

> Martin, Evan, Ted, Philip, all,
> After the schema.org workshop, Hixie opened a bug on supporting multiple item types in microdata [1], if they share the same vocabulary. I'm hoping to get some input to see whether we want to make any comment on that bug.
> Martin / Evan: What you are aiming to do with GoodRelations / rNews and schema.org? Are you recommending people just use the appropriate schema.org types, just the more specialised types from GoodRelations / rNews, or use both at the same time?
> Ted / Philip: Do you have any feeling about whether browsers might end up natively supporting the microdata vocabularies from the WHATWG HTML spec [2] (eg to give better integration with people's address books or calendars) or are they likely to support equivalent types/properties from the schema.org vocabulary, or do nothing natively with embedded data?
> Anyone else have any thoughts about multiple types? It seems to me that if our general argument is that consumers should state what they consume and publishers should produce data in multiple formats to match those requirements [3][4], then we're encouraging people to publish with multiple vocabularies, which implies multiple types coming from different vocabularies.
> Thanks,
> Jeni 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14233
> [2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#mdvocabs 
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0024.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0025.html
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 19:37:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:24 UTC