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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:24:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFr6XR85GCJV-UePxaNXF9crhsapwqnx9iFWvahLJ2ay6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, jasnell@gmail.com, public-vocabs@w3.org, "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Thanks everyone. Lots of mail!

I have tried to make a brief summary of some of the points in the Web
Schemas wiki, just a sketch of individual positions really rather than
a summary of the whole debate. I also started there to write up
details of a concrete proposal for 'additionalType'.

http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/additionalTypeProposal ...

Since nobody has volunteered to lead an effort to get Microdata syntax
changed to support multiple types from different vocabularies, and on
balance after reading thru all the debate, I think we should go for
the new property approach.

I'd like to make sure that we capture all the concerns people have in
the Wiki and in the resulting property definition, and to give some
thought to how validators and checkers ought to behave.

Peter, Egor, others, ... can you live with a new property here? (one
of 'additionalType' or 'type') Any preferences on name?


Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 17:25:06 UTC

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