Re: Proposal: Audiobook

On 30 September 2013 20:24, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/30/13 11:24 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> On 30 September 2013 19:15, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this not why  'additionalType' was added to Thing?
>>
>>
>> Yes: Microdata has trouble with the idea of describing an item using
>> multiple independently defined types:
>>
>> " Multiple types defined to use the same vocabulary can be given for a
>> single item by listing the URLs as a space-separated list in the
>> attribute' value. An item cannot be given two types if they do not use
>> the same vocabulary, however." --
>>
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#typed-items
>>
>> Rather than trying to gradually turn Microdata into something that it
>> isn't (i.e. back into RDFa), the schema.org team decided instead to
>> add the additionalType property.
>
>
> I had understood the "additionalType" as mainly having a function of
> categorization -- this thing is both an apple and a fruit. Does the use of
> an additionalType that is a schema.org type provide access to all of the
> properties of the additionalType?

It is purely another way of writing rdf:type. Any pair of things that
are related by rdf:type could equally well be described as being
related by schema:additionalType. In the sense that RDF's
types/classes are useful for categorisation, then so is this
mechanism. But maybe there's a subtle difference in how you're using
the word 'categorize' that I'm not picking up on?

Dan

Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 19:28:12 UTC