- From: åÇÏÒ áÎÔÏÎÏ× <elderos@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:11:03 +0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>,Guha <guha@google.com>,"public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Sure, there is no problem We cannot change W3C specs anyway :-) 14.05.2012, 13:03, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>: > On 14 May 2012 10:50, åÇÏÒ áÎÔÏÎÏ× <elderos@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >> šI don't see any sense to include full class hierarchy in path. >> šIt proposed something like this: >> >> š<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Sculpture/" > >> š<span itemprop="awards"> some award </span> >> š... >> š</div> >> >> šthe short form is transformed into type + property name [...] > > This is one of those topics where there is no obvious right answer, > only tradeoffs. > > Can we agree to disagree here, and accept that for the purpose of > interchange and standards schema.org uses 'http://schema.org/' + > propertyname, following the conventions of RDFa Lite and other W3C > specs? Internally in various systems we are free to record all kinds > of extra information, including one or more type(s) associated with > the property occurrence. > > cheers, > > Dan -- Egor
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 09:11:41 UTC