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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:00:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+aU_3LePnK4oY8VL6+4bWOVydPcEtV77+qkYeQr=OPR0Q@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:00:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:25 UTC