W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2013

Re: schema.org proposal for extending Thing

From: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 21:14:59 -0400
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <817A9EE5-11E9-435A-9777-B7513F8EEDE7@opengeospatial.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Ah, OK I get it now. I'd describe additionalType as allowing you to refer to 'Things' that aren't schema.org 'Things'. Whereas CreativeWork's 'about' property allows you to refer to 'Things' that *are* schema.org 'Things'. I can now see how my category requirement could be expressed using additionalType. 

I'm not sure if there's general consensus that categorization/tagging is properly seen as a typing exercise. Looking forward to comments from the group...

The OGC: Making location count.

On May 8, at 8:27 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 9 May 2013 01:15, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
>> Could you provide an example of how to use additionalType? It's not clear to me.
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/additionalTypeProposal#Examples
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
>   <link itemprop="additionalType"
> href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Fire_extinguisher" />
>   <span itemprop="name">.. a short name for the object ...</span>
>   Product description:
>   <span itemprop="description">... a longer description ...</span>
>   <div itemprop="offers" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer">
>       <span itemprop="price">$19.99</span>
>       <a itemprop="availability" href="http://schema.org/InStock"></a>In stock
>   </div>
> </div>
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 01:15:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC