W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Multiple types in RDFa vs. in Microdata

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:57:09 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikttQsF=BL_8ocEuxUphyNp+oa_jA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Martin,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Martin Hepp <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Dear all:
>
> Until today, I had assumed that one limitation of Microdata was that it did
> not support more than one class per item, e.g. that you could not state that
> something was e.g. the intersection of
>
>    http://www.productontology.org/id/Hammer
> and
>    http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Individual
>
> which, in the context of GoodRelations, means that it is an actual hammer
> (like in describing antiques or other unique items).
>
> Now, reconsidering the issue, I am no longer convinced that this is valid
> criticism, because you could use the full URI for rdf:type with itemprop:
>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://www.foo.com/Type1" itemid="
> http://acme.org/things#1>
>  <a itemprop="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type" href="
> http://www.foo.com/Type2"></a>
> </div>
>
>
> This should result in
>
>   <http://acme.org/things#1> a <http://www.foo.com/Type1>, <
> http://www.foo.com/Type2> .
>
> or am I mistaken?
>

I believe you are correct, and according to the Live Microdata tool, it
yields the expected results. here is the link (click on the turtle tab):
http://j.mp/iUH2FS

Steph.


> Best
> Martin Hepp
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 22:59:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:13 UTC