- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:58:47 -0400
- To: Cord Wiljes <cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 13:59:19 UTC
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Cord Wiljes < cwiljes@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 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,...)? > While you technically could do that, I concur with Martin and would use one syntax only. Steph.
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 13:59:19 UTC