- From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:20:52 +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: <CAFQgrbY27Dwyks-SuGYJyXM4goEFSpp1sE2XGYaHkbA3FDZhyw@mail.gmail.com>
For an ItemPage that contains a Product I would use @about to define the
Product category (if there is one). For example:
<body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ItemPage">
<div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Thing">
<span itemprop="name">Laptops</span>
<link itemprop="sameAs" href="http://www.freebase.com/m/01c648">
</div>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
[...product details...]
<div>
</body>
Now I consider the subject of a WebPage to be something different than the
objects it contains, yet that's how I interpret this property. I agree that
the schema.org site could use more examples of how to use @about (when not
using it in combination with a CreativeWork) but the same most definitely
can also be said about how to use WebPage and WebPageElement.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jocelyn Fournier <
jocelyn.fournier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 10:21:24 UTC