W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2012

Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types

From: Alexander Botero-Lowry <alexbl@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:56:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAuL=6LVvE+KCqPP5F-JXOG7wbW4rtOccGmR0=8ZAUbEhMhnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Guha <guha@google.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
On Jun 18, 2012 10:48 AM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 00:41, Guha <guha@google.com> wrote:
> > My personal preference is to just add an attribute called type (or
> > additionalType) which is samePropertyAs rdfs:type and be done with it.
> I just don't think it's feasible, so let's try to do the best we can
> with 'additionalType'.
> A concrete proposal:
> Property: additionalType
> samePropertyAs: rdf:type
> description: "An alias for the rdf:type relationship between something
> and a class that the thing is in. It is generally preferable to use
> syntax-native typing mechanisms. The additionalType construct can be
> useful in constrained syntaxes - e.g. microdata - where multiple types
> from
> independent vocabularies cannot be easily expressed. In such
> situations, care should be taken to assign the most relevant
> schema.org type using
> the primary (e.g. 'itemtype') typing syntax. Schema.org tools may have
> only weaker understanding of extra types, in particular those defined
> externally."

I think this is OK but we need to be explicit that for this to work the
primary type (itemtype) needs to be a part of schema.org or the
additionalType predicate needs to be fully qualified.

> Peter & co. - can you live with that?
> Dan
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 19:47:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:46 UTC