> > >> I've tried the example in the JSON-LD playground and resources is not ignored, it's mapped to http://schema.org/resources <http://schema.org/resources> instead (I don't think there's a solution for that issue if we don't roll out our own JSON-LD context document) > It is my mistake: I should have checked! > > There is a solution: we do not use the term "resources"… We have to use a term that is _not_ a schema.org <http://schema.org/> term. I have changed the examples to use "publ-resources" for now, and we can have then an enjoyable set of bike shedding to find a suitable name... > "resource" is not a schema.org <http://schema.org/> term (-> 404) but the property is extended with a schema.org <http://schema.org/> prefix because of the default context. > >> too bad that we don't have a rel value for the object representations in resources, this would allow us to re-use existing rel values such as privacy-policy or contents > > Agreed, and it may one of the items we would have to see with schema.org <http://schema.org/>. I guess that, for the purpose of WPUB, we can agree to use the http://schema.org/disambiguatingDescription <http://schema.org/disambiguatingDescription> term for something like that, but a controlled vocabulary may have been better indeed. > If I remember well, the initial "news" extension of schema.org <http://schema.org/> was a mess and the IPTC consortium was active to make it a correct set of properties. The W3C Publishing group could do the same -> work on schema.org <http://schema.org/> Best Laurent
Received on Monday, 4 June 2018 14:14:46 UTC