- From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:20:46 +0200
- To: Егор Антонов <elderos@yandex-team.ru>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Guha <guha@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Egor and Dan, Thank you both for insights but I would say this issue remains crucial when I consider RDF extraction and data interlinking. All the best, Adrian On 5/14/2012 11:11 AM, Егор Антонов wrote: > 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, Егор Антонов<elderos@yandex-team.ru> wrote: >> >>> I don't see any sense to include full class hierarchy in path. >>> It proposed something like this: >>> >>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Sculpture/"> >>> <span itemprop="awards"> some award</span> >>> ... >>> </div> >>> >>> the 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
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 09:21:18 UTC