W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > June 2017

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

From: Umutcan Simsek <umutcan.simsek@sti2.at>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:25:39 +0200
To: Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>, public-schemaorg@w3.org
Message-ID: <7f66e75a-13e1-3b10-afd5-24bf23e83261@sti2.at>
Hi,

For another way of modelling data with external types, you may also
wanto to take a look at this property: http://schema.org/additionalType.

"An additional type for the item, typically used for adding more
specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax. This is a
relationship between something and a class that the thing is in. In RDFa
syntax, it is better to use the native RDFa syntax - the 'typeof'
attribute - for multiple types. Schema.org tools may have only weaker
understanding of extra types, in particular those defined externally."

Greetings

Umut


29.06.2017 21:16 tarihinde Christopher Allan Webber yazdı:
> 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________

-- 
Umutcan Simsek, MSc.
STI Innsbruck
Deparment of Computer Science
University of Innsbruck
Tel: +43 512 507 53723
Skype: umutcansimsek
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 23:27:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:35 UTC