- From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:14:39 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Larry Betts <lbetts@thoughtwm.com>, "Dr. Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADK2AU0sZpyoB47uKk_ULfKNaGQzdVnNRPgq-hckHwDkyzxWMA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for explaining the comparison between the two.
*"RDFa behaves differently if the element contains both @resource and
@property"*
I won't ask you about this yet Gregg because I've got plenty of reading to
do still and want to see if I can figure out what's behind it myself. But
I'm going to keep it in the back of my head in case I don't.
2014-04-17 1:16 GMT+02:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>:
> On Apr 16, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't actually know. I just am starting to wrap my head around
> @resource, @rev and @rel. Haven't had time to look into @about as well.
> Maybe somebody else can say something more educated about that?
>
>
> @itemid is essentially the same as @resource; when interpreting Microdata
> as RDF, it sets the subject of the triples for that @itemscope. It must be
> used on the same element as @itemscope and @itemtype. If you also have
> @itemprop on that element, the identifier will be set as the object of a
> triple relating to a previous item using the specified property.
>
> RDFa behaves differently if the element contains both @resource and
> @property
>
> Gregg
>
> 2014-04-16 22:45 GMT+02:00 Larry Betts <lbetts@thoughtwm.com>:
>
>> That's some great information Jarno! Would "itemid" be an analog to the
>> RDFa "reference"/"about"?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> *Larry P. Betts*
>> Search Engine Marketing Specialist
>>
>> Thoughtwire Marketing LLC
>> PO BOX 8077
>> Mansfield, OH 44907
>> Phone: 877-848-9581 Ext. 1055
>> Direct: 419-610-2076
>> Fax: 440-209-7783
>> Email: lbetts@thoughtwm.com <pfernando@thoughtwm.com>
>> Web: http://www.thoughtwiremarketing.com <http://www.thoughtwm.com/>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I just wanted you to know that after the last mailing I have been doing
>>> quite some reading as well extensive testing and am happy to inform you
>>> that Google now fully supports @itemid as global identifier and that
>>> linking to it actually works!
>>>
>>> Not only do I get the right results in Google's Structured data testing
>>> tool but in also Webmaster tools. I've been testing with @itemid on my own
>>> site, by having multiple objects link to the same entity, as well creating
>>> cycles by having entities point to each other, and everything returns the
>>> proper values and types.
>>>
>>> I have reworked the example Niklas provided in Microdata so you can see
>>> yourself:
>>> (don't feel like reading the code? than look at what the SDTT makes of
>>> it: http://bit.ly/1jLitKl)
>>>
>>> <body itemid="page" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ItemPage">
>>> <link itemprop="copyrightHolder" href="corp">
>>>
>>> <article itemprop="text">
>>> <div itemid="article" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Article
>>> ">
>>> <link itemprop="publisher" href="corp">
>>>
>>> <h1 itemprop="name">How to copy properties in RDFa Lite &
>>> Microdata</h1>
>>> </div>
>>> </article>
>>>
>>> <footer itemprop="mentions" itemscope itemtype="
>>> http://schema.org/WPFooter">
>>> <p>
>>> <span itemid="corp" itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="
>>> http://schema.org/Corporation">
>>> <a itemprop="url" href="http://www.example.org">
>>> <span itemprop="name">Corporation name</span>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>> <span itemprop="description">Corporation description</span>
>>> </span>
>>> </p>
>>> </footer>
>>> </body>
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the great input you have given me! I actually have hope
>>> again that I will be able to make sense of RDFa because of it. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-11 19:02 GMT+01:00 Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>:
>>>
>>> You might want to steal some ideas from the mKR language.
>>>>
>>>> mKR lets you name any list of propositions, e.g.,
>>>> my propositions :: { proposition list };
>>>> and manipulate that list in numerous ways.
>>>>
>>>> You can add, delete, ... propositions
>>>> You can change the underlying class hierarchy
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> *Dick McCullough *
>>>> Context Knowledge Systems<http://mkrmke.org/ContextKnowledgeSystems.html>
>>>> mKE and the mKR language <http://mkrmke.org/mKEmKR.html>
>>>> mKR/mKE tutorial <http://mkrmke.org/doc/MKEtutorial.html>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:41:09 +0100
>>>> From: jarnovandriel@gmail.com
>>>> To: gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>> CC: lindstream@gmail.com; public-rdfa@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: how do I copy some properties that are part of a bigger
>>>> pattern
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the sources Gregg. Some of 'm I know but with the new
>>>> insights I have now I bet some of 'm will make much more sense to me now.
>>>> I'll make sure to read it before asking more questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-11 2:01 GMT+01:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "...There is no difference here between links and "nested" items..." +
>>>> "...Try the example..."
>>>> Thanks, you just made my brain explode. =)
>>>>
>>>> It's been a couple of years since my first attempts at understanding
>>>> RDFa - which failed miserably - since I have difficulty translating the W3
>>>> specifications in, for me, understandable rules on how it's supposed to be
>>>> used and what it can do. Your comments together with the RDFa Play outcome
>>>> succeeded where countless hours of reading specifications and experimenting
>>>> with markup have failed me. Seriously Niklas, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Now as for the IRC meet, let that slide for now. A tsunami of
>>>> possibilities just flushed over me and I have to give it some time to let
>>>> it sink in. The first thought I had after reading your comments and seeing
>>>> the RDFa Play outcome was that writing an article about the use of @itemref
>>>> isn't that difficult but comparing that to rdfa:pattern just became a whole
>>>> lot more complicated. It now has become clear to me there is no 1:1
>>>> relation between the two - where I thought there was - and that RDFa offers
>>>> different solutions for many of the situations where one only can use
>>>> @itemref in Microdata. Which IS marvelous but which leaves me confused in
>>>> how to clarify that in an article without writing a series that's as thick
>>>> as the bible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are some great discussion threads on public-rdfa-wg in around
>>>> December 2012, starting with a proposal from Ivan. Check out the
>>>> "Reproducing Gregg/Niklas' thoughts ..." thread in
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Dec/thread.html.
>>>>
>>>> As Niklas points out, the original concept was that a semantic approach
>>>> to property-copying, where we identified a resource and used it as the
>>>> source for copying properties, and remove the original "template" resource.
>>>> Basically, it could mostly be done using SPARQL with INSERT DATA/DELETE
>>>> DATA. It's worth looking at the thread to see some of the thought processes
>>>> that were going on at the time.
>>>>
>>>> I do know however that I want to limit myself to RDFa Lite since it's
>>>> the RDFa community's answer to Microdata. Or at least that's way I
>>>> understand it. So let me therefore ask, what are the differences between
>>>> RDFa and RDFa Lite? Is there any clear documentation about the difference
>>>> between the two I can read?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The RDFa Lite 1.1 recommendation <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/>
>>>> pretty much calls this out. Also, the RDFa 1.1 Primer <
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/>. The key observation to the
>>>> LIte recommendation is that RDFa gets complicated when there are too many
>>>> attributes on an element, and the distinction between @about and @resource
>>>> can be subtle. Even now, I see people having a problem with Microdata, when
>>>> they use @itemprop on an anchor, and seem to expect the content of the
>>>> element, rather than the value of @href to be used as the property's value.
>>>> RDFa suffers from the same issue, but things get simpler when you restrict
>>>> yourself to using fewer attributes and avoid combining them together.
>>>>
>>>> That said, there is quite a bit of power in full RDFa 1.1, particularly
>>>> in the use of lists and chaining <
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_chaining>. Chaining is really useful
>>>> when you have a number of resource values from the same property, for
>>>> example the author list of a document. This avoids repeating markup, but it
>>>> is a sophisticated feature. IMO, you really can't write RDFa (full or lite)
>>>> or Microdata without running it through a distiller to verify that it says
>>>> what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> Let me widen the question: Are there any sources you guys can recommend
>>>> me to read about RDFa (Lite)?
>>>> Like I said earlier, it's been a couple of years for me, so I hope new
>>>> documentation exists by now, besides the W3 specifications.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Manu wrote a great post on the differences between RDFa Lite and
>>>> Microdata: <http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/>.
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-09 18:10 GMT+01:00 Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jarno,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Jarno van Driel <
>>>> jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "...outputs two different nodes for what seemingly is the same
>>>> corporation..."
>>>> You're right in stating that this results in two instances of the same
>>>> Corporation. Which is the only way in Microdata to have an Item
>>>> (Corporation) be linked to other Items by means of different properties
>>>> (copyrightHolder & publisher). The following markup simply wouldn't work in
>>>> Microdata:
>>>> <div itemprop="manufacturer" itemref="corporation-data">
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, microdata (presumably) being a tree model prevents it from
>>>> connecting items together naturally. It's a big flaw. It only deals with
>>>> surface data, and says nothing about what it means. Perhaps @itemid makes
>>>> it into some kind of graph at times though, it's hard to tell when there
>>>> are no semantics explaining what that entails.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Microdata itemref can only get additional info about a Type. You
>>>> can't use it on a property and then use itemref to get the @itemtype
>>>> elsewhere. That's why in Microdata I have to declare the Corporation twice,
>>>> to be able to link it to different entities (ItemPage & Article) by means
>>>> of different properties (copyrightHolder & publisher). Which brings me to
>>>> the question: Can this be accomplished RDFa Lite where it can't in
>>>> Microdata? - keeping in mind that in this specific example according to
>>>> schema.org rules the publisher and copyrightHolder are both expected
>>>> to 'have' a type and are not supposed to 'link' to a type.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it can. RDFa uses the RDF data model, which is a graph [1]. There
>>>> is no difference here between links and "nested" items. You type and (when
>>>> needed) identify things, link them together and describe their details with
>>>> literals (texts) – all using properties. That is what I did in the example
>>>> given.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "...<p resource="#page">
>>>> <span property="copyrightHolder" typeof="Corporation"
>>>> resource="#corp">..."
>>>> The downside to this method is that the copyrighHolder-Corporation now
>>>> gets linked falsely. I quickly checked the output in Google's SDTT, which
>>>> showed the Corporation being a child of the WPFooter as opposed to being
>>>> the copyrightHolder of the ItemPage. The use of rdfa:pattern prevents this
>>>> happening as does a itemscope without an itemtype in Microdata e.g. <div
>>>> itemscope>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Google SDTT is wrong. It should recognize that <p resource="#page">
>>>> sets the subject for nested statements (here ensuring that the <#page> has
>>>> the <#corp> as :copyrightHolder). It seems that adding a @typeof:
>>>>
>>>> <p resource="#page" typeof="ItemPage">
>>>>
>>>> makes it behave somewhat more as expected. But note that that isn't
>>>> necessary in RDFa, it's just a workaround for a bug in the SDTT. (Try the
>>>> example out in e.g. <http://rdfa.info/play/> to see it more clearly.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Also, the resulting data here doesn't contain two distinct nodes for
>>>> what is apparently meant to be the same corporation."
>>>> True, but the two distinct nodes also have type-specific relations to
>>>> the two distinct items this example has, namely ItemPage and Article. Maybe
>>>> that info got a bit lost because I stripped out so much of the original
>>>> HTML. The source I took this from has an ItemPage with a gazillion other
>>>> types attached to it while the Article is just that, an Article, with it's
>>>> own set of properties, mostly separated from the rest of the content on the
>>>> ItemPage, only sharing data from the Corporation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think I see how you mean. But if you think of this in terms of the
>>>> RDF data model, the items simply are resources linked together (and
>>>> assigned some types, and described with textual properties), rather than
>>>> blocks of data tied to the page structure (or the microdata tree structure,
>>>> which hardly helps). In this model, the corporation is surely one thing,
>>>> connected to from the ItemPage using copyrightHolder, and from the Article
>>>> using publisher (both of which are fine since the thing linked to is of the
>>>> expected type).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I'd be happy to take a look at such examples as well."< br>
>>>> Maybe we should meet in an IRC session, like Gregg suggested, because
>>>> I'm convinced we can keep this argument-counterargument up for quite some
>>>> time. Not that I mind, since this mailing has already given me a ton to
>>>> think about, but simply to be more time-efficient. Just let me know what
>>>> you guys prefer, either way is fine with me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine either way too. :) I tend to have intermittent bouts of time,
>>>> so mailing is usually better for examples. But I could go for a chat over
>>>> specifics if needed.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Niklas
>>>>
>>>> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-09 14:19 GMT+01:00 Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jarno and Gregg!
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that this is a good example of where @itemref-like
>>>> functionality is quite unnecessary in RDFa. The #copyright-holder simply
>>>> contains a link from the page to the corporation, and the #publisher-url
>>>> and #publisher-description contain properties of that corporation. The
>>>> resulting microdata, however, outputs two different nodes for what
>>>> seemingly is the same corporation, so perhaps the example has been
>>>> simplified too much, thus obscuring what is actually needed?
>>>>
>>>> Still, In RDFa, instead of adding different @id:s to disparate parts of
>>>> the page which are about the same resource (and then listing them in
>>>> @itemref), you simply use @resource to capture the fact that a given block
>>>> is about it.
>>>>
>>>> Your example can thus be written like this in RDFa Lite:
>>>>
>>>> - - - 8< - - -
>>>>
>>>> <body vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="ItemPage" resource="#page">
>>>> <article property="text">
>>>> <div typeof="Article">
>>>> <link property="publisher" resource="#corp">
>>>>
>>>> <h1 property="name">How to copy properties in RDFa Lite &
>>>> Microdata</h1>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </article>
>>>>
>>>> <footer property="mentions" typeof="WPFooter">
>>>> <div property="text">
>>>> <p resource="#page">
>>>> <span property="copyrightHolder" typeof="Corporation"
>>>> resource="#corp">
>>>> <a property="url" href="http://www.example.org">
>>>> <span property="name">Corporation name</span>
>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>> <span property="description">Corporation description</span>
>>>> </span>
>>>> </p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </footer>
>>>> </body>
>>>>
>>>> - - - >8 - - -
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, this is a more convenient way of handling data smeared
>>>> out in a messy tag soup (with the results being shorter and more
>>>> legible). Of course, you need to name these resources, unless they already
>>>> have formal URIs, but that's easily done with a fragment identifier or a
>>>> bnode id. (And note that in microdata, you instead need to ensure that a
>>>> layout designer doesn't meddle with the @id values used by @itemref, for
>>>> quite different reasons (their use in CSS and JS).)
>>>>
>>>> Also, the resulting data here doesn't contain two distinct nodes for
>>>> what is apparently meant to be the same corporation.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, it is only when you need to duplicate a set of properties for
>>>> different resources that rdfa:copy is necessary. And even in those
>>>> circumstances, you might be able to leverage the way @resource can group
>>>> descriptions together, to build up one pattern from disparate parts of the
>>>> page.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy to take a look at such examples as well.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Niklas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Jarno van Driel <
>>>> jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think your and my latest example just passed each other Gregg. I
>>>> guess I posted mine when you were writing yours because when I compare the
>>>> two I see we implemented the same workaround by means of additional
>>>> @resource.
>>>>
>>>> "I wouldn't recommend the use of included patterns in RDFa, but it can
>>>> be made to work."
>>>> I wouldn't recommend it either but unfortunately the everyday website
>>>> out there consists out of a HTML-soup which doesn't allow for Semantic
>>>> markup to be added in a nice and clean way. Now I mainly work on already
>>>> existing websites, where I have to make do with HTML that's already in
>>>> place. Therefore itemref or rdfa:pattern are indispensable when
>>>> organizing/linking data that's smeared out over many different HTML
>>>> elements on a page. I am very aware this results in markup that isn't
>>>> 'nice' but it helps create meaning even if the HTML is a mess.
>>>>
>>>> "P.S., I think it’s great that you’re trying to describe this for a
>>>> wider audience!"
>>>> Well, I'm not doing it alone. Aaron Bradley is acting as the devil's
>>>> advocate by asking me questions which mess up the solutions I provide.
>>>> Which in return forces me to come up with different solutions and ask a lot
>>>> of questions at the public-vocabs (and now here as well). :)
>>>>
>>>> So trying to do something for a bigger audience will most definitely
>>>> end up in something that has been contributed by many people. As always
>>>> this kind of stuff ends up being a multi-community/person effort since it
>>>> brings together so many different specializations and specifications.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Andy and Gregg,
>>>> Thanks for sharing your knowledge, I'll make sure re-share it and am
>>>> hopeful it will result in an article (or series of) which will try to serve
>>>> anybody who is (or should be) interested in this type of info.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-09 6:46 GMT+01:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "..the @resource attributes get in the way.."
>>>> Could you explain this to me a bit more please Gregg? Because if I
>>>> parse my last markup through the Structured data linter and RDFa Play I get
>>>> 100% the same outcome as with your markup. Yandex and Google see the same
>>>> data as well (in a ever so slightly different manner).
>>>>
>>>> When I look at the output these parsers have no trouble extracting the
>>>> @resources as different rdfanodes. Unless I'm completely overlooking
>>>> something, or am breaking some cardinal rules, which both are feasible
>>>> since I just got around to looking more deeply into RDFa Lite.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In order to be able to reference the publisher-uri and
>>>> publisher-description information as patterns, they need to have an
>>>> identifier, which I supplied by adding @resource (and
>>>> @typeof=“rdfa:Pattern) to each. However, this changes the scope of their
>>>> properties relative to the copyright-holder.
>>>>
>>>> In you’re RDFa version you weren’t able to access the publisher-uri or
>>>> publisher-description, as you do from Microdata. The RDFa property copying
>>>> uses a resource of type rdfa:Pattern, which must be identified as a
>>>> resource. For this reason, I added the @resource and @typeof for both the
>>>> publisher-description and publisher-url. However, doing that, changes the
>>>> current subject for each of these, so the “url” and “description”
>>>> properties are allocated to different resources. To get around this, I
>>>> added the rdfa:copy properties both the the publisher reference, and to the
>>>> copyright-holder, so that the properties appear in each of them. I wouldn’t
>>>> recommend the use of included patterns in RDFa, but it can be made to work.
>>>>
>>>> I’d recommend both for Microdata and RDFa to keep references simple,
>>>> and using included references, while possible, can make things more
>>>> confusing. This is certainly not a pattern we were concerned about when
>>>> crafting the property copying mechanism in HTML+RDFa. They two really work
>>>> quite differently: Microdata requires full access to the DOM so that
>>>> referenced elements can be copied, which requires random access to the DOM.
>>>> The RDFa mechanism operates at a semantic level, by creating triples as
>>>> normal. RDFa is intended to work with streaming processors, where there is
>>>> no random-access to the DOM. The spec provides details of the rules which
>>>> are applied to achieve the effect of property copying [1], but it’s not
>>>> really magic to RDFa, and could just as easily be done for triples
>>>> extracted from Turtle, or even Microdata, if the appropriate copying rules
>>>> were applied.
>>>>
>>>> I understood that you didn’t know how to deal with a pattern embedded
>>>> in another pattern, which I attempted to address for you. I think that the
>>>> RDFa I provided does essentially what your Microdata does. If you want to
>>>> discuss more, we should probably meet on IRC.
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>>
>>>> P.S., I think it’s great that you’re trying to describe this for a
>>>> wider audience!
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/#implementing-property-copying
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-09 1:33 GMT+01:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jarno, I don’t think you can do precicely what you want, since if a
>>>> pattern is included in another pattern, the @resource attributes get in the
>>>> way. You can do it by adding some more rdfa:copy properties. This is what I
>>>> came up with:
>>>>
>>>> <body vocab="http://schema.org/" resource="#item-page"
>>>> typeof="ItemPage">
>>>> <link property="rdfa:copy" href="#copyright-holder">
>>>>
>>>> <article property="text">
>>>> <div resource="#article" typeof="Article">
>>>> <div property="publisher" typeof="Corporation">
>>>> <link property="rdfa:copy" href="#publisher-url"/>
>>>> <link property="rdfa:copy" href="#publisher-description"/>
>>>> </div>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <h1 property="Name">How to copy properties in RDFa Lite &
>>>> Microdata</h1>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </article>
>>>>
>>>> <footer property="mentions" typeof="WPFooter">
>>>> <div property="text">
>>>> <p resource="#copyright-holder" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">
>>>> <span property="copyrightHolder" typeof="Corporation">
>>>> <link property="rdfa:copy" href="#publisher-url"/>
>>>> <link property="rdfa:copy" href="#publisher-description"/>
>>>> <span resource="#publisher-url" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">
>>>> <a id="publisher-url" property="url" href="
>>>> http://www.example.org" title>
>>>> <span property="name">Corporation name</span>
>>>> </a>
>>>> </span>
>>>>
>>>> <span resource="#publisher-description" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">
>>>> <span id="publisher-description"
>>>> property="description">Corporation description</span>
>>>> </span>
>>>> </span>
>>>> </p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </footer>
>>>> </body>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <body vocab="http://schema.org/" resource="#item-page"
>>>> typeof="ItemPage">
>>>> <link property="rdfa:copy" href="#copyright-holder">
>>>>
>>>> <article property="text">
>>>> <div resource="#article" typeof="Article">
>>>> <link property="publisher" typeof="Corporation" href=?????>
>>>>
>>>> <h1 property="Name">How to copy properties in RDFa Lite &
>>>> Microdata</h1>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </article>
>>>>
>>>> <footer property="mentions" typeof="WPFooter">
>>>> <div property="text">
>>>> <p resource="#copyright-holder" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">
>>>> <span property="copyrightHolder" typeof="Corporation">
>>>> <a id="publisher-url" property="url" href="http://www.example.org"
>>>> title>
>>>> <span property="name">Corporation name</span>
>>>> </a>
>>>>
>>>> <span id="publisher-description" property="description">Corporation
>>>> description</span>
>>>> </span>
>>>> </p>
>>>> </div>
>>>> </footer>
>>>> </body>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 10:15:07 UTC