- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:09:37 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Dan, On 30 Oct 2011, at 07:00, Dan Brickley wrote: > 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 ? No. > ...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. Exactly. > 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? Yes. > If so, I understand things. If not, I'm missing some story. You got it. > 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. Good :) Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:13:57 UTC