- From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:26 +0200
- To: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFQgrbaN8s1WmZebZzbLetDqO6GXNcmuxopy6vXnNewjVk-fAQ@mail.gmail.com>
I always understood that defining the subject of a page is something
different as it's 'main' content. I for example use 'about' as such:
<body itemscope
itemtype="http://schema.org*/CollectionPage*<http://schema.org/CollectionPage>
">
<div itemprop="about" itemscope
itemtype="http://schema.org/*Thing*<http://schema.org/Thing>
">
<span itemprop="name">Appels</span>
</div>
<div itemscope itemtype http://schema.org/ImageObject>
<span itemprop="name">Granny Smith</span>
</div>
<div itemscope itemtype http://schema.org/ImageObject>
<span itemprop="name">Royal Gala</span>
</div>
<div itemscope itemtype http://schema.org/ImageObject>
<span itemprop="name">Pink Lady</span>
</div>
</body>
though I'd like to able to express:
<div itemprop="mainContentOfPage" itemscope itemtype
http://schema.org/ImageObject>
<span itemprop="name">Granny Smith</span>
</div>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jocelyn Fournier <
jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 20/04/2014 22:05, Jarno van Driel a écrit :
>
> "It sounds like you have a reasonable argument for that!"
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the support. What is the actual status of the the Periodical
>> proposal by the way? Is it a done deal,does it only need votes, or are
>> there still open issues?
>>
>> Because if there still are issues, it would make sense to me to include
>> this in the Periodical proposal as well. It seems a waste of time and
>> energy to me to expand to CreativeWork first only to be followed by
>> expanding it to Thing. We might as well do it in go.
>>
>> And if that's an option, I'll be more than happy to help. Just let me
>> know what I can do.
>>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Another issue with schema.org/WebPage : the use of the "about" property.
> For me the right way to markup an ItemPage about a product is :
>
> <body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ItemPage">
>
> <div itemprop="about" class="container" itemscope itemtype="
> http://schema.org/Product">
> [...]
>
> However, the use of itemprop="about" completely remove the rich snippets
> related to the product. (if I remove itemprop="about", the snippet appears
> again).
>
> e.g. : http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:
> 8004f8158d05057c17d7e28209fa182d
>
> But perhaps I'm wrong here ?
>
> Thanks,
> Jocelyn Fournier
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net
>> <mailto:dan@coffeecode.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 08:38:33PM +0200, Jarno van Driel wrote:
>>
>> "...might be of interest to you."
>> I've been trying to follow along with that thread as much as I
>> can but I
>> find it difficult due to it's complexity. Now I just read the
>> proposal and
>> it seems actually makes sense to me, so I was wondering, is this
>> the final
>> draft?
>>
>> And to pull in something from that proposal: @isPartOf and
>> @hasPart.
>>
>> Looking at the current proposal for adding a reverse mechanism
>> to Microdata
>> (https://www.w3.org/wiki/__WebSchemas/InverseProperties
>> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/InverseProperties>) and
>>
>> imagining it
>> gets accepted, would @hasPart still be needed? RDFa, MIcrodata
>> and JSON-LD
>> all would be able to express the opposite of @isPartOf. Or
>> should it stay
>> part of the proposal simply to make life easier for those who
>> are looking
>> for a property like @hasPart and aren't aware of the existence
>> of a reverse
>> mechanism?
>>
>>
>> _If_ Microdata adds a reverse mechanism, then inverse properties would
>> not be necessary. We would change the examples to demonstrate the
>> use of the reverse mechanism so that those who aren't aware of the
>> existence of a reverse mechanism would become aware of them in a
>> useful
>> context!
>>
>> However, when we created the Periodical proposal in late 2013, the
>> Microdata spec had been relatively static (no significant changes
>> since
>> late 2012, with the exception of the "Converting HTML to JSON"
>> section)
>> and we were under the impression that the schema.org
>> <http://schema.org> partners were only
>>
>> parsing the RDFa Lite portion of the RDFa spec (which wouldn't include
>> @rev). Proposals can only reflect their contexts :)
>>
>>
>> Now I recall, you and Karen Coyle saying something about using
>> @hasPart for
>> WebPageElements in a previous thread by Martin Hepp (
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/
>> __0091.html
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/
>> 0091.html>),
>>
>> and
>> like I said in that thread, I am quite ok with using @*Part* for
>> this.
>> Makes perfect sense to me to do it like that.
>>
>> But I don't hink having @mainContentOfPage bound to CreativeWork
>> is enough.
>> Many sites describe a Product, Event, MedicalProcedure, etc, all
>> types
>> which aren't part of CreativeWork, yet which are marked up
>> because they are
>> the main entity of that page. After all most sites don't go any
>> further
>> with their markup than that.
>>
>>
>> Right, we were focused on the needs of the Periodical proposal, where
>> CreativeWork appeared to be the appropriate domain and range for
>> hasPart
>> / isPartOf.
>>
>> So perhaps another proposal with different requirements would
>> recommend
>> an even broader range for isPartOf, so that Event and MedicalProcedure
>> could be properly accommodated as well (although part of me wants to
>> make MedicalProcedure, with all of its Text properties, a subclass of
>> CreativeWork...) It sounds like you have a reasonable argument for
>> that!
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 28 April 2014 08:00:53 UTC