- From: Jocelyn Fournier <jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:01:11 +0200
- To: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- 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>
Le 28/04/2014 10:00, Jarno van Driel a écrit : > 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> > It's not really clear at all how to use the "about" prop, especially on an ItemPage :) But basically in your example the <span itemprop="name">Appels</span> could be attached directly to the "CollectionPage". But I agree I use it more like a "mainContentOfPage" property. A clarification on how to use it would be really helpfull. > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jocelyn Fournier > <jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com <mailto: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 <http://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 > <http://schema.org/ItemPage>"> > > <div itemprop="about" class="container" itemscope > itemtype="http://schema.org/__Product <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:__8004f8158d05057c17d7e28209fa18__2d > <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> > <mailto: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> > <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> > <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> > > <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 10:01:32 UTC