Re: How well recognized / parsed / handled are composite types?

Hi,
You can test Google's parser output via its Structured Data Testing Tool. It looks like Google recognizes the type schema:Person but not the type customfoo:Citizen, as expected.
Bing has a similar tool here: https://www.bing.com/toolbox/markup-validator
Cheers.-Nicolas.
On Thursday, June 29, 2017, 12:20:13 PM PDT, Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:

Hi there,

I'm doing some data modeling for a client that would like to ensure that
their content is discoverable via Google / Bing / etc.  We're using
schema.org everywhere we can, but there are some custom terms.  Say we
have a Person object posted in a context like:

  {"@context": {"schema": "https://schema.org/",
                "customfoo": "https://foo.example/ns#"}
  "@type": ["schema:Person", "customfoo:Citizen"],
  "schema:name": "Gertrude McBell",
  ...}

This should technically be valid data modeling as far as I can tell, and
it should also convey that this Person is also a "Citizen" under their
custom vocabulary.  (This is not the actual vocabulary we're using, I'm
just making up an example.)  Composite types are allowed in the linked
data world in general... but whether they are recognized by common
systems is another thing.

Google / Bing / etc probably have no idea what a Citizen is here, even
though it is important to our data, and that's fine.  But will they
still be able to recognize the presence of Person with the type as an
array?

If not, maybe we should stick to just a singular type, as schema:Person.

Thanks in advance!
 - Christopher Allan Webber