- From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 13:45:22 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, Juraj Kabát <kabat.juraj@gmail.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CADK2AU2ucX1uqcv4GZqkcr0EuUqTo+tMARc2Lq7S1zsAPPf6Tg@mail.gmail.com>
mmmmm, could it be there's a misunderstanding on the working of itemprop-reverse (and something that needs to be explained better in the proposal)? The way I understood it is that: itemprop-reverse="memberOf" equals itemprop="member", or, itemprop-reverse="hasPart" equals itemprop="isPartOf". Meaning itemprop-reverse is meant to express the opposite value of a property but not to express a reverse relation. Dan Brickley, Martin Hepp and Thad Guidry, how do you see this? 2014-08-02 23:56 GMT+02:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>: > On Aug 1, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > > > On 1 August 2014 15:35, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org > > <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > >> Richard, Jarno: > >> > >> Note that the itemprop-reverse proposal does not imply that there > should be no inverse properties in schema.org. It is just that we should > be able to use properties in both directions without the need to define two > properties, one for each direction. Inverse properties in the vocabulary > can make sense in some cases (like in the ongoing thread). > >> > >> So we should be clear about the fact that advancing the > itemprop-reverse proposal does not stop you from having both isPartOf and > hasPart. We should define inverses formally in the vocabulary (e.g. by > adding a property http://schema.org/inverseOf to the meta-model of > schema.org). > > > > Indeed. Personally I'm pretty supportive of hasPart, although it is > > hard to know where to draw the line. We didn't do it in the last > > revision when the focus was more on WebSite and we generalized > > isPartOf as a side effect. Both isPartOf and > > http://schema.org/containedIn have the awkward characteristic that the > > point from 'inner' things to 'outer', even while markup structure > > generally starts with containers and has their parts 'inside' in > > markup terms. We're taking a good look at Periodical this week so will > > get back to you all on that asap. > > > > BTW > https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works > > would benefit from "we think this is pretty much done" -style > > read-throughs from other folk here. I've bounced it off a few more > > contacts from the library/bibliographic world and it seems to about > > right.... > > I've updated my Microdata to RDF implementation [1] to support > @itemprop-reverse, and need to clarify the interaction with @itemprop. > Consider the following example: > > <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization"> > <span itemprop="name">Cryptography Users</span> > <div itemprop-reverse="memberOf" itemprop="member" itemscope > itemtype="http://schema.org/OrganizationRole"> > <div itemprop-reverse="memberOf" itemprop="member" > itemscope > itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"> > <span itemprop="name">Alice</span> > </div> > <span itemprop="startDate">1977</span> > </div> > </div> > > This doubly-links a Role, using memberOf as the inverse of member. The > resulting Turtle, would be: > > @prefix schema: <http://schema.org/> . > @prefix md: <http://www.w3.org/ns/md#> . > <> md:item (_:a) . > _:a a schema:Organization; > schema:name "Cryptography Users"; > schema:member _:b . > _:b a schema:OrganizationRole; > schema:startDate "1977"; > schema:member _:c; > schema:memberOf _:a . > _:c a schema:Person; > schema:name "Alice"; > schema:memberOf _:b . > > However, it's not clear that Microdata would support having both @itemprop > and @itemprop-reverse on the same element. I updated the Wiki to indicate > no, but this needs to be clarified with WHATWG and this list. > > (I'm also considering just dropping the md:item list, as not being too > useful; feedback on this would be appreciated. > > You can use this live through my distiller [2] (although, not the linter > yet). > > Gregg > > [1] https://github.com/ruby-rdf/rdf-microdata > [2] http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller > > > Dan > > > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 01 Aug 2014, at 15:56, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> Agree that pushing for reverse property capability in Microdata is a > good thing. > >>> > >>> However, I must harmonise with Jarno about hasPart [click, hasPart - > click, hasPart - click..] as proposed in several places including the > Periodicals, Articles, & Mult-Volume Works proposal. > >>> > >>> Describing something like a multi-volume work, for example it is quite > possible that the individual parts are defined elsewhere on the web, > without knowledge of the the multi-volume description > >>> > >>> > >>> ~Richard > >>> > >>> > >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:59, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> "as Jarno knows, for he was involved in the discussion ;-)" > >>>> hehe, it could well be I mentioned the existence of the proposal here > and there. > >>>> > >>>> "Anyway, I'll take it to the HTML folks and report back." > >>>> Great, that would help a lot! > >>>> > >>>> Although I have to say (running the risk I sound like a broken > record) that I still believe adding an 'hasPart' property would help a lot > as well. I see both the <link> pointing to an itemid and itemprop-reverse > attribute as more advanced methods for mapping relations and fear that > folks, who are not too familiar with either microdata, will overlook them. > Having 'hasPart' as well will provide an easy and straightforward solution > for a property I suspect will be use quite a lot. Especially if the > schema.org provides sufficient examples on how to use it for layout > entities like WebPage, WebSite, SiteNavigationElement, WebPageElement, etc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2014-08-01 9:10 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>: > >>>> On 1 August 2014 07:52, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org > >>>> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > >>>>> There is a fully-fledged proposal to add inverse properties to > microdata: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/InverseProperties > >>>>> > >>>>> (as Jarno knows, for he was involved in the discussion ;-) > >>>> > >>>> And I well remember too. We had also already begun a discussion on the > >>>> WHATWG list, so the issue is well established. > >>>> > >>>>> Maybe we can ask Dan to look into this matter again? It would really > help to have this feature. > >>>> > >>>> I think it is indeed time to revisit. I didn't want to push for > >>>> @itemprop-reverse until the Role work stabilised, but now that is done > >>>> I believe it's time. That said, there is still sometimes justification > >>>> for adding a reverse property, and the site software now supports > >>>> linking such pairs where they exist (e.g. see > >>>> http://schema.org/alumni). Anyway, I'll take it to the HTML folks and > >>>> report back. > >>>> > >>>> Dan > >>>> > >>>>> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin Hepp > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 01 Aug 2014, at 00:40, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> "I notice you don’t have an itemprop attribute in your first <div> > element. Was that intentional?" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That would only have been possible if 'hasPart' (which isn't part > of the specification) could have been used (or itemprop-reverse="isPartOf"). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because there is no inverse property of 'isPartOf', nor a reverse > mechanism for microdata, Juraj is bound to chain the entities together by > making use of <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="[itemid-value]">. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A cumbersome method, that now can be applied where it first > couldn't. All be it but one that can be improved still. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-07-31 17:52 GMT+02:00 Jason Johnson (BING) < > jasjoh@microsoft.com>: > >>>>>> I notice you don’t have an itemprop attribute in your first <div> > element. Was that intentional? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Juraj Kabát [mailto:kabat.juraj@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:08 AM > >>>>>> To: public-vocabs@w3.org > >>>>>> Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force > >>>>>> Subject: Re: schema.org update, v1.8: added WebSite type; > broadened isPartOf to relate CreativeWorks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When Ill try to add isPartOf property to ItemList, Im getting this > warning: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> WARNING: isPartOf field not specified in http://schema.org/ItemList > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Example snippet: > >>>>>> <body itemid="#WebPage" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/CollectionPage"> > >>>>>> <div class="products" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/ItemList"> > >>>>>> <meta content="Unordered" itemprop="itemListOrder"> > >>>>>> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope > itemprop="itemListElement"> > >>>>>> <img src="[url]" itemprop="image"> > >>>>>> <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span > itemprop="name">[name]</span></a> > >>>>>> <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope > itemprop="offers"> > >>>>>> <span itemprop="price">[price]</span> > >>>>>> </span> > >>>>>> </div> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope > itemprop="itemListElement"> > >>>>>> <img src="[url]" itemprop="image"> > >>>>>> <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span > itemprop="name">[name]</span></a> > >>>>>> <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope > itemprop="offers"> > >>>>>> <span itemprop="price">[price]</span> > >>>>>> </span> > >>>>>> </div> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </div> > >>>>>> </body> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But when Ill add isPartOf property to each ItemListElement, > everything works like expected. > >>>>>> What am I missing here? ItemList extends CreativeWork as well... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why can't I chain whole ItemList to parent but instead of that I > have to repeat myself for every element in list? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Jarno van Driel < > jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Personally I most of all like the addition of WebSite (and it's > creative example) as well as the reworked 'isPartOf' most and I've already > started to implementing them. :-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But I would have been an even happier camper if 'hasPart' would > have been introduced as well. And even though chaining WebSite > WebPage > > WebPageElements > CreativeWork now can be achieved, without abusing > 'mentions' for this, it unfortunately is quite cumbersome in microdata > because one has to use itemid quite a lot, eg: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <body itemid="#WebPage" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/WebPage"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <nav itemid="#SiteNavigationElement" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <ul> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage" > itemid="#WebPage-1"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#SiteNavigationElement"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </a> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <ul> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage-1" /> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </a> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </li> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage-1" /> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]"> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </a> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </li> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </ul> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </li> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </ul> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </nav> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </body> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm still quite pleased with the update is as though. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-07-28 17:43 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> previous update (1.7), > >>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jul/0012.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A small schema.org update just went live: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. We add a new CreativeWork type, "WebSite" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://schema.org/WebSite > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "A WebSite is a set of related web pages and other items typically > >>>>>> served from a single web domain and accessible via URLs." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The example shows the use of this with SearchAction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. We adopt the proposal made by the bibextend group and other > >>>>>> collaborators, to broaden isPartOf. It now relates any CreativeWork > to > >>>>>> any other CreativeWork > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://schema.org/isPartOf > >>>>>> > >>>>>> see also > https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Potential Actions documentation > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The previously PDF-only Potential Actions document is now on the > site in HTML: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://schema.org/docs/actions.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4. Adopted some markup fixes from Stephane Corlosquet (thanks!) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/71 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 5. Improved consistency of encoding / associatedMedia description > >>>>>> (thanks Dan Scott!) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/35 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 6. Updated some out-of-date sections of the FAQ: it now mentions > >>>>>> Yandex appropriately, acknowledges that there's life beyond > Microdata > >>>>>> (i.e. RDFa, JSON-LD), and doesn't talk about "version 0.9 draft" any > >>>>>> more. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/69 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks all :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 11:45:51 UTC