- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:00:10 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
[...] Can I take a sanity-check-break here? So I'm missing something basic from all this: Does the extra 'type' relationship used here actually mean anything different from http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type ? ...or is the main purpose to have shorter URIs syntactically? Both because the 1999 URI is long, and because Microdata makes certain things easier (shorter) if a property is in the same namespace as the currently-focal type. In other words, are documents using this new 'type' true descriptions of the world under exactly the same circumstances as if the 1999 RDF 'type' URI had been used? If so, I understand things. If not, I'm missing some story. Re Schema.org, Guha has said he's willing to add a 'type' property; if the story is as above, and 'type' would just be a convenient alias within Schema.org vocab for benefit of authors of Schema.org-centric markup, then I support that too. Dan
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:00:49 UTC