RE: Schema.org property cardinality and use of plural (WAS Re: SoftwareApplication proposal for schema.org)

hi Dan,

it is clear from the example provide that usging plural is not correct as each instance of operatingsystems points to one unique object.

Those who tend to use plural make it optional followed by an individual with cardinality one to many
 
But this is quite ugly for ontologies. ( IMHO)

JP
________________________________________
From: Dan Brickley [danbri@danbri.org]
Sent: 24 February 2012 17:04
To: Lin Clark
Cc: Adrian Giurca; public-vocabs@w3.org
Subject: Re: Schema.org property cardinality and use of plural (WAS Re:  SoftwareApplication proposal for schema.org)

On 24 February 2012 16:33, Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at this brought up a previous question. I see that properties such
> as operatingSystems are given plural names. However, it could look confusing
> in microdata.
>
> For example:
>
> <div itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication">
> <ul>
>   <li itemprop="operatingSystems">OSX 10.6</li>
>   <li itemprop="operatingSystems">Windows 7</li>
> </ul>
>
> This was previously brought up in Issue 5, and I pointed out the kinds of
> confusion using the plural in that way might cause for content authors. Has
> there been any further discussion?

There has been a bit of discussion, but nothing conclusive.

What do others here think? Is schema.org's use of plural properties
problematic enough that people want a change?

I don't have a complete list but for example

* http://schema.org/CreativeWork has 'reviews' pointing to a 'Review
-- Review of the item.'
* or 'encodings' -> 'The media objects that encode this creative
work'. (It also has 'offers' and 'mentions' but those have a
non-plural reading)
* http://schema.org/Movie has 'actors', which takes (Person) 'A cast
member of the movie, TV series, season, or episode, or video.'
* and also 'director' (Person), 'The director of the movie, TV
episode, or series.'.

Anyone care to make a complete list of these?

Dan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 18:32:11 UTC