Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product? - two types approach not valid

This is exactly what my microdata testing revealed as well, for all of the
solutions discussed.

If an additional type is declared using <link itemprop="additionalType">
the additional type property is recognized, but any properties associated
exclusively with the additional type are reported as an error ("Error: Page
contains property "[X]" which is not part of the schema."):
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both.php

If an additional type is listed as an additional URL in the itemtype
declaration, the additional type is not recognized, and properties
exclusive to it are listed as an error:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-2.php

This is the case whether or not full URLs are used for both types used as
the itemtype value (above), or if only the item type name is used for
second type:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-4.php

The NU Validator complains about the white space being used, but if this is
replaced with "%20" it borks both types for the Structured Data Testing
Tool:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-3a-p20.php

As Egon notes, the SDTT recognizes only the first item type.  If the order
is reversed, it's the other item-specific property that is listed as an
error:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http://www.airshock.com/schools/flunkout-both-3.php



On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> The "two types approach" isn't valid - Rich Snippet Testing Tool doesn't
> detect the second type and means, the property from the second type isn't
> part of the schema.
>
> Here is an example, as i understand the "two types approach" relating to
> my issue:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004e84e6adc79a951051ef6f09c3f62
>
> The way with additionalType gives the same validation problem out: the
> type, setted with additionalType, isn't detected by Testing Tool, the
> property of the second type isn't part of the schema...
>
>
> http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004e84e9dd5fcb63ed38bef8ac3d69b
>
> greets
> egon
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> schrieb am Di, 8.10.2013:
>
>  Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?
>  An: chilly_bang@yahoo.de
>  CC: "Dan Scott" <dan@coffeecode.net>, public-vocabs@w3.org,
> aaranged@gmail.com
>  Datum: Dienstag, 8. Oktober, 2013 14:23 Uhr
>
>  Hi Chilly,
>  it is not a bug, but a feature - schema.org follows the idea
>  that if you need multiple types (not exactly, but roughly
>  what you mean with inheritance), you shall represent that at
>  the *instance* level, not in the *schema*.
>
>  The choice is very pragmatic and effective: If you have
>  certain types in a vocabulary that are not disjoint, you
>  would otherwise have to materialize all (or at least a lot
>  of reasonable) combinations. That would blow up the
>  vocabulary significantly. Plus, many of the types we are
>  discussing here represent *roles*, not rigid, essential
>  types. So a book that is described as a product is simply
>  the intersection of Book and Product. A book that is
>  described in a non-commercial context is just a book.
>
>  Since the semantics of Product is essentially that of a
>  Thing used as the object in an offer, a large share of
>  schema.org types would have to appear as specializations of
>  Product.
>
>  Multiple typing at instance level is NOT a workaround. It is
>  a flexible modeling paradigm, rooted in the notion of
>  facets.
>
>  Martin
>
>  On Oct 8, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Chilly Bang wrote:
>
>  > Hello!
>  >
>  > I read all your answers  - many thanks for
>  clarifying this issue. As i see there are mainly two
>  approachs to get thing done: "two types approach" and using
>  of additionalType.
>  >
>  > It is very helpful to have such workarounds, but they
>  are only workarounds, not a "right" solution. This issue
>  seems to be solvable with just simple change of type passage
>  structure/inheriting, namely: one things must be maked
>  possible, CreatieWork type must can inherit Product type. I
>  mean such inheritance is a simple thing, which is even
>  partly present, on other place: CreativeWork can inherit
>  Offer, but why not Product? Making it possible would make
>  such workarounds like "two types approach" redundant - they
>  are indeed redundant cause of impossibility of inheritance,
>  which is possible on another, near place.
>  >
>  > Schema.org has pretty clear structure, maintaining of
>  it provides Schema.org to more users and makes the
>  implementing more easy, selfexplaining and issueless. But if
>  one thing is possible on one place, on another similar place
>  is this not possible and needs workarounds so the whole
>  clear structure of Schema is confused. It is just my
>  feeling.
>  >
>  >
>  > --------------------------------------------
>  > Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
>  schrieb am Mo, 7.10.2013:
>  >
>  > Betreff: Re: CreativeWork can't be a Product?
>  > An: "Chilly Bang" <chilly_bang@yahoo.de>
>  > CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
>  > Datum: Montag, 7. Oktober, 2013 22:37 Uhr
>  >
>  > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:16:01PM
>  > +0100, Chilly Bang wrote:
>  >> Hello!
>  >>
>  >> i'm busy at the moment with marking up with
>  microdata of
>  > an online bookstore and realized the following
>  dilemma:
>  >> if a page is about describing and selling of a
>  > CreativeWork/Book, so i come to selling properties
>  with
>  > itemprop="offers" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer". But
> on this way i can't
>  > describe the book i sell like Product, with product's
>  > properties - i can't find any passage from CreativeWork
>  to
>  > Product. There is in fact a passage from Offer to
>  Product,
>  > with itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope="" itemtype="
> http://schema.org/Product", but repeating isn't a good
>  > way, beside of this it isn't easy to get such passage
>  into
>  > html, even with itemref.
>  >>
>  >> I see no possibility to go the way
>  > CreativeWork->Product->Offer (or
>  > CreativeWork->Product and CreativeWork->Offer),
>  but
>  > only CreativeWork->Offer, or Product->Offer.
>  > CreativeWork can't be a Product or am i wrong?
>  >>
>  >> Imho CreativeWork surely can own product's
>  properties so
>  > it must gladly have a passage from any CreativeWork
>  property
>  > to Product.
>  >
>  > You can just use both types in the itemtype
>  declaration, for
>  > example,
>  > itemtype="Book Product".
>  >
>  > We're doing this in the #schemabibex group to express
>  offers
>  > for a given
>  > item. And Martin gave a wonderful example of this
>  approach
>  > on this list
>  > just a few days back at
>  > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Sep/0206.html
>  >
>  >
>
>  --------------------------------------------------------
>  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/
>
>
>
>
>
>