- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:52:30 +0200
- To: Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
I would stick to one syntax per page, i.e. either microdata or RDFa. If you want to mix multiple vocabularies, RDFa has the more advanced support anyway.
The additionalType property in schema.org is mainly designed to allow extensibility in an RDF-compatible way for cases where a single type per entity is insufficient.
On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Cord Wiljes wrote:
> Am 08.09.2012 00:02, schrieb Stéphane Corlosquet:
>> Schema.org offers a work around for that via the additionalType property: "An additional type for the item, typically used for adding more specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax. This is a relationship between something and a class that the thing is in. In RDFa syntax, it is better to use the native RDFa syntax - the 'typeof' attribute - for multiple types. Schema.org tools may have only weaker understanding of extra types, in particular those defined externally." - you can see it on all schema.org type pages, e.g. http://schema.org/Person
>
> As RDFa is more advanced than Microdata: Would it make sense to use Microdata for schema.org and mix it with RDFa for other vocabularies (like Dublin Core, Good Relations,...)?
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype: mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp
Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 13:52:55 UTC