Re: Follow up on singularity changeset

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> 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.orgmarkup
> > 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"...!
>

Done.
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Singularity#Follow_up_.28June_29th.2C_2012.29

Steph.


>
> Dan
>