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

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>wrote:

> Well, validators developers will not be very happy with this change.
> However, if it happens, I prefer 'type' name, because 'additionalType'
> implies there are other, non-additional ones.
>

I disagree. 'type' would be misleading and imply that all types are set by
this property, when it is not the case. Microdata and RDFa have simpler
ways of setting the types of a data item. This new property should be used
sparingly and for cases where the default microdata itemtype attribute is
not sufficient. Note that it does not make much sense to be used in RDFa
since mixing vocabularies for types is natively supported.

Steph.


> And on semantic level there must be no difference between object types.
>
> 19.06.2012, 22:37, "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:
>
> Hi Dan,
> Thanks for summarizing this. Two suggestions:
>
> 1. Instead of samePropertyAs: rdf:type, use owl:equivalentProperty if you
> want to express how the additional type information can be mapped into an
> RDF world.
>
> 2. Add a link to the thread in the W3C archive so that the full details of
> the discussions are easy to reach:
>
> By the way, the original proposal now being favored was already described
> in my post
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0088.html
>
> and presented at the schema.org Workshop back in September 2011 (slide
> 16):
>
>
> http://schemaorg.cloudapp.net/2011Workshop/sw1109_Vocabulary_GoodRelations.pdf
>
> Best
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>  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?
>
>  cheers,
>
>  Dan
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
> --
> Egor Antonov
> http://staff.yandex-team.ru/elderos
>