Re: Rationale behind separate TechArticle / HowTo types?

Hi Joe,

Sounds like a reasonable approach.  When proposing updates to the
descriptions of TechArticle & HowTo you might find the special markdown
syntax for links to Schema terms useful e.g..  [[TechArticle]] will result
in the correct html to provide the link to term page.

~Richard.

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 20 September 2017 at 15:39, Joe Pairman <joepairman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aaron, thanks for the example — I found a couple of other MTE examples
> earlier in the day, but this one's very clean and also passes the SDTT,
> which is nice.
>
> Richard, thank you for the "Schema.org in practice" links: very useful.
>
> What I have in mind, then, is to create a TechArticle / HowTo MTE example
> but also to edit the description of each entity type to add
> cross-references between them. As more people use Schema.org for technical
> and procedural content, I think more people will need the properties of
> both, and it would be good if they didn't have to do too much research to
> find out how.
>
> Does that sound ok?
>
> By the way, it might be a while until I get round to doing these tweaks,
> so if anyone else gets there quicker that's absolutely fine too!
>
> Best regards,
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Joe, here's a simple - and, from the Google Structured Data Testing
>> perspective - example of an multi-type entity.  Not using the types under
>> discussion, but uses types well known to Google so hopefully illustrative.
>>
>> You'll see here properties that aren't valid an individual type - e.g.
>> "sku" isn't valid for "Book" and "author" isn't valid for "Product" - but
>> are valid when both are declared as an array for @type.
>>
>> <script type="application/ld+json">
>> {
>>   "@context": "http://schema.org",
>>   "@type": ["Product", "Book"],
>>   "aggregateRating": {
>>     "@type": "AggregateRating",
>>     "bestRating": "100",
>>     "ratingCount": "24",
>>     "ratingValue": "87"
>>   },
>>   "sku": "1234",
>>   "author": {
>>     "@type": "Person",
>>     "name": "John Steinbeck",
>>     "sameAs": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck"
>>   },
>>   "image": "grapes-of-wrath.jpg",
>>   "name": "The Grapes of Wrath",
>>   "offers": {
>>     "@type": "Offer",
>>     "price": "9.95",
>>     "priceCurrency": "USD"
>>   }
>> }
>> </script>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Joe Pairman <joepairman@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the information. An example of such a multi-type entity
>>> would be very useful. Is there a facility for cross-linking between the two
>>> types so that people looking at HowTo could also see the possible joint use
>>> with TechArticle? (I'm not sure how the docs are generated; I assume
>>> automatically from an RDFSs source, so not sure if arbitrary
>>> cross-referencing is possible.)
>>>
>>> Who would normally update the documents? As it happens, I'll need to
>>> come up with an example of this multi-type entity myself for an upcoming
>>> presentation — would it be helpful if I made that available as a possible
>>> example to use in the docs?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Richard Wallis <
>>> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>
>>>> The simple answer to your question is that there was probably very
>>>> little connection between the recent development of the HowTo
>>>> <http://schema.org/HowTo> type and its predecessor (by a long time)
>>>> TechArticle <http://schema.org/TechArticle>.  It certainly escaped my
>>>> notice that ‘*Example: How-to topics, step-by-step*,’ was part of the
>>>> TechArticle description.
>>>>
>>>> For your article that has procedural info use case I would agree that
>>>> a multi-type entity would be the most suitable solution.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that the description of TechArticle is tweaked a little to
>>>> reference such a use, and an example or two added.
>>>>
>>>> ~Richard.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>