Re: question about medical code

On 1/26/13 9:21 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:

>
> First, we ought not to confuse Microdata [1] with Microformats [2].
> While the Schema.org partners have chosen to consume Microdata and
> RDFa Lite, they have not agreed to support Microformats beyond some
> they already consume.

Thanks, Jason, for the clarification. I need to sit down and memorize 
those definitions.


>
> I don't think this group should try to make any recommendation that
> would work in RDFa and not work in the more constrained RDFa Lite or
> Microdata, since it is these syntaxes that the Schema.org partners
> have agreed to consume.

That makes perfect sense to me. However, since I am not a coder (this 
should be obvious to all by now :-)), does this mean that any of the 
recommendations we have on our wiki need to change? I note that some of 
them do not have Microdata/RDFa lite examples, and therefore I simply 
don't know if they are compliant or not. Could someone with more coding 
knowledge take on this task? And should I drop the N3 example from the 
Identifiers-2 page?

Thanks, and sorry if this makes more work for others.

kc


>
>> The question seems to be whether RDFa compliance is to be the test for every
>> proposal for schema.org vocabularies. It definitely does not seem to have
>> been in the past. Perhaps we need to ask this of DanBri?
>
> I think you can refer to the Compliance section of this page:
> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
>
> "While we would like all the markup we get to follow the schema, in
> practice, we expect a lot of data that does not. We expect schema.org
> properties to be used with new types. We also expect that often, where
> we expect a property value of type Person, Place, Organization or some
> other subClassOf Thing, we will get a text string. In the spirit of
> "some data is better than none", we will accept this markup and do the
> best we can."
>
> I'm not sure what is meant by RDFa compliance, since RDFa Lite is
> completely compliant with RDFa. It may not be as powerful and expose
> all of the features we might like, but it is still compliant. I think
> the best we can do is to provide examples of what would be best (like
> provide a URI when possible), but expect that some publishers will
> just enter a text string. The onus for complexity and sorting out poor
> data is on the consumers and on the producers.
>
> Jason
>
>
> [1] Microdata http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html
> [2] Microformats http://microformats.org/
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 17:49:36 UTC