Re: Inconsistent markup for JobPosting

Dear  Stéphane,

Thank you for opening such debate as it is very significant when 
consuming Microdata annotations.  I assume that "incentives" should work 
like any other Text property. As the example 
(http://schema.org/JobPosting ) seems to "list" only one job incentive 
it appears to be a one-item list. It matters how the Schema processor 
extracts the value of this property. In any case the plural intends 0..* 
incentives.
But the markup conforms with Microdata spec. "incentives" has parent a 
JobPosting. The expected value is Text  but what would be its exact 
value is related to the extraction processor strategy.

For example, a processor may extract the value of "qualifications"
as

"<li>Ability to work in a team environment with members of varying 
skill levels.</li>
<li>Highly motivated.</li>
<li>Learns quickly.</li>"

or as

"Ability to work in a team environment with members of varying skill 
levels.Highly motivated.Learns quickly."

or even as a collection

" 'Ability to work in a team environment with members of varying skill 
levels',
'Highly motivated.',
'Learns quickly.' "

The same issues come up with any potential collection.

-Adrian Giurca

On 6/29/2012 4:59 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
> It's unclear in the JobPosting <http://schema.org/JobPosting> 
> microdata example whether the property 'incentives' works like the 
> other properties such as responsibilities, educationRequirements, 
> or experienceRequirements which are Text. I'm assuming incentives 
> works the same way as its sibling properties, but in the example, the 
> itemprop="incentives" is inside a span in the li element, whereas for 
> the other properties, the itemprop is placed higher in the ul element 
> (parent of all the li elements of the list). This example seems to 
> indicate that if there were several items in the list of incentives, 
> there would be several values for 'incentives' in the generated output 
> (and the property should be renamed to its singular form too). This 
> would need to be clarified. If incentives is expected to be a one 
> value Text like the other JobPosting properties, I would suggest to 
> make the example consistent. I've attached a patch that fixes that and 
> also cleans up the HTML in the example (mostly wrong indentations).
>
> Steph.