- From: Max Froumentin <Max.Froumentin@digital.justice.gov.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:57:54 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Matthias Tylkowski <matthias@binarypark.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>
On 3 Jun 2013, at 15:55, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > My advice would be to publish in RDFa and mix-in both types at the > instance level when it makes sense, rather have schema.org itself say > for each type which one will also always be a place. We don't say > anything that stops something being both a Courthouse and a > GovernmentBuilding, for example. So I should use RDFa because it allows me to qualify the same piece of HTML markup as both Courthouse and GovernmentBuilding? > (in fact I think Microdata is fine > with multiple types too, so long as they come from the same > vocabulary, which they do in this case). So microdata allows it too? I can't really see how. > While we could tweak the type hierarchy and add more Place subtypes > under Organization (or LocalBusiness) that seems an endless task. > > We should probably add contactPoint into Place. (e.g. A Volcano having > a contactPoint seems better than it having a faxNumber…). +1 Max.
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 12:59:18 UTC