On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > Quick feedback Omar and others, > > <table typeof="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/"> > > I would rather see "typeof" be renamed to "rowstypeof" or simply > "rowstype" to truly indicate that all the rows themselves have the implied > type and not the Table Set type or class. This way we can reserve the > Table "typeof" for higher kinded types, classes, and categories if need be ? > > My thinking and expression would look something like this : > > <table typeof="Artwork" rowstype="Painting" vocab="http://schema.org/"> > > cooler ideas also embedding the use of http://schema.org/Class : > > <table category="OnSale" class="Artwork" rowstype="Painting" vocab=" > http://schema.org/"> > In addition to what Dan said, these new attributes would also not be valid HTML. Sticking to existing attributes will avoid validation issues. Steph. > > Thoughts ? > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Omar Benjelloun (عمر بنجلون) < > benjello@google.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Many useful datasets on the Web take the form of tables. The goal of this >> proposal is to provide a simple, schema.org-friendly way to "look inside" >> these tables, and map their contents into triples. >> >> This is an early draft proposal developed at Google. We're seeking >> feedback from the community. >> >> The proposal is attached to this e-mail, and will be uploaded to the >> WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals page shortly. >> >> Thanks, >> -Omar >> > > > > -- > -Thad > Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry> > Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/> > -- Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 17:40:00 UTC