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

Re: Follow up on singularity changeset

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:45:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFppbsns15gY8jc5f4SY=2x4Ewzfni9waBg+HbtFE3mhuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 29 June 2012 17:24, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems like we missed a couple of properties which should have been changed
> to their singular form. Most of the properties at the bottom of
> the unchanged properties of the Singularity proposal should remain plural,
> but 'ingredients' from Recipe ought to be singular since 1) its definition
> is "An ingredient used in the recipe." and 2) the example shows a list of
> multiple instances of ingredients. Finally 'ingredient' (singular) is
> consistent with the property defined in the Google documentation for Rich
> snippets - Recipes and used in microformats, microdata and RDFa. (I know
> this is not schema.org, but it will make the migration to schema.org markup
> easier and less error prone).
> 'offers' is another one that I think should be singular. It is used in
> CreativeWork, MediaObject, Event, and Product. Maybe it was meant to be the
> third person, but still that does not make sense: "Event has an Offer"
> sounds right, but "Event offers an Offer" does not sound right.
> Dan, I'm happy to put this in the wiki, can I update the existing proposal
> even though it's marked published, or should this go into a new page?

Thanks, stick it at the end under "Oops"...!

Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 15:45:56 UTC

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