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

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

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:15:08 +0100
Cc: public-html-data-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <400BF6FD-1630-4AE5-8CA9-E4F1B2029378@jenitennison.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Guha <guha@google.com>

Could you find out whether the W3C would be amenable to hosting a vocabulary directly at www.org, to provide support for really common global properties and types, such as http://www.org/type as suggested below?

Dan, Guha,

Another possibility to help cases where people want to use types from their own specialised vocabularies would be to define a http://schema.org/type property. That URI is also fairly clean and could be abbreviated to "type" in microdata where schema.org is being used (which is going to be the majority of microdata, I imagine). What do you think?



On 15 Oct 2011, at 11:00, Lin Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>> 4. A global property. This could be rdf:type or we could recommend that the W3C define an equivalent property but with a more approachable URI, such as 'http://w3.org/ns/global/type'. In your example, that would mean:
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
>>  <link itemprop="http://w3.org/ns/global/type"
>>       href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Hammer" />
>>  <link itemprop="http://w3.org/ns/global/type"
>>       href="http://example.org/my_ontology.owl#Tool" />
>> <!-- other schema.org properties go in here -->
>> </div>
>> This has the advantage of having a consistent way of adding types, but makes the markup more cluttered than the previous solutions. However easy you make the URL for the type, it's always going to be something that people have to work to remember; given it'll be cut-and-pasted anyway, you might as well use the existing rdf:type rather than inventing something with an equivalent semantics.
> I like this suggestion a lot. The only thing I disagree with is the reasoning about the URL. For example, something like http://www.org/type would be easy to remember, and it has the advantage that www.org is owned by the W3C. 
> If the W3C were open to using that domain for simple glue terms for microdata vocabularies, then I think it would be pretty intuitive for users... the global properties for the web being at www makes intuitive sense.
> -Lin

Jeni Tennison
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 11:15:46 UTC

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