- From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 00:16:20 +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: <CADK2AU2VdmWnU0dR+QXfy2HRc2LKpKttOYGepTPF2052OOfW9g@mail.gmail.com>
I've made a document ( https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/ChainingLayoutElements) with a bunch of markup examples, in microdata, in an attempt to help with the overlapping discussions about: @itemprop-reverse, hasPart - isPartOf, and the chaining of WebPage to WebSite and WebPageElements, and the Things they (may) contain (mainContenOfPage / mainEntity). If any of you want to have a look/shoot at it and/or suggest additions, by all means, please do. I hope it helps. :) 2014-08-03 22:37 GMT+02:00 Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>: > "I think you may be confusing the expressed data model, with the >> semantics of the vocabulary terms" > > > Yep, I was. Thanks for pointing it out. :) > > "there is no lookup process that turns schema:member into >> schema:memberOf; that can be inferred using semantics" > > > OK, so if I understand this correct, from a syntax perspective there's > nothing wrong with <div itemprop-reverse="isPartOf" itemprop="isPartOf"...> > but it's meaning depends on schema.org? > > If so, how can the meaning than be inferred if there is no inverseOf value > for 'isPartOf'? Or isn't this an issue and is the reverse-relation > statement expressive enough? > > >> "your example would be simpler for most webmasters to follow" > > > I think it's a little bit easier to read but on the other hand it requires > the use of identifiers, which often cause the need for additional > programming when building custom HTML templates. A burden many programmers > prefer to avoid and why the use of properties like @id ( + @itemref) or > (@itemid + href) aren't very popular. And when it comes to online > marketers/seo consultants, who advise about the use of schema.org, well > unfortunately - in my experience - many (if not most) don't have the > technical skills to be able to markup as such nor advice about it; as well > as not seeing the value of taking it that far with schema.org. > > There's still a lot do in regards to getting the information out there. > and maybe its an idea schema.org also start to incompass examples that > make use of @itemid, @itemref, @rel, @resource, @rev, etc. Because the most > heard complaint I get when talking about it with others is: "where did you > get that info?" or "where can I find more examples?". Now I'm not aware of > any page on any of the sponsors sites which demonstrates anything like > this, nor on schema.org itself. And those are the places where most folks > for information... > > >> "but the use of @itemprop and @itemprop-reverse on the same element is >> subject to debate." > > > Like I said, it hadn't occurred to me to do it this way, but personally I > like it, it looks clean and effective. But I don't believe there's a > preferred way to do it from a developer's perspective. Especially when > building (CMS) templates the 'best' way to do it often often depends on > which template file you're working on and to which data you have access to > from within that template. Which often forces one to to deviate from the > 'ideal' markup pattern and coming up with creative workarounds and > different solutions. > > "in which case a processor seeing the same anonymous @itemscope twice may >> not generate the same BNode." > > > Makes sense, although I have no experience building parsers, so I can't > say I have an opinion about whether this should be allowed from that > perspective. > > > 2014-08-03 19:42 GMT+02:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>: > > On Aug 3, 2014, at 7:56 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> OK, let me continue to be the student for a moment please. >> >> I understand Gregg's example, but what he wrote I would have written as: >> >> <div itemid="#Organization" itemscope itemtype=" >> http://schema.org/Organization"> >> <span itemprop="name">Cryptography Users</span> >> <div itemid="#OrganizationRole" itemprop="member" itemscope itemtype=" >> http://schema.org/OrganizationRole"> >> <link itemprop-reverse="member" href="#Organization"> >> <div itemprop="member" itemscope itemtype=" >> http://schema.org/Person"> >> <link itemprop-reverse="member" href="#OrganizationRole"> >> <span itemprop="name">Alice</span> >> </div> >> <span itemprop="startDate">1977</span> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> where I understand: >> itemprop="member" equals 'has member' >> and >> itemprop-reverse="member" equals 'is member of' >> >> >> I think you may be confusing the expressed data model, with the semantics >> of the vocabulary terms. Schema.org defines "memberOf" as the inverseOf >> "member", but this is a semantic definition. A processor does not >> (typically) make use of the semantics, but uses syntax to express the >> model. In both cases, we use the "member" property, so it's the >> schema:member relationship which is defined, there is no lookup process >> that turns schema:member into schema:memberOf; that can be inferred using >> semantics, presuming that schema:inverseOf is similar to owl:inverseOf, :s >> schema:memberOf :o implies :o schema:member :s. >> >> Your example is semantically equivalent to my own, but makes use of >> identifiers for the various objects, rather than anonymous nodes, which is >> just fine. I was attempting to do the minimal change to the Role example >> already existing in the schema.org documentation, but the use of >> @itemprop and @itemprop-reverse on the same element is subject to debate. >> As it happens, in my implementation, it works just fine, but Microdata to >> RDF is defined using DOM functions (specifically, element.properties). >> WHATWG may decide to implement something similar to >> element.reverseProperties, in which case a processor seeing the same >> anonymous @itemscope twice may not generate the same BNode. >> >> I do think it's simpler for authors to not need to worry about such >> interactions, and simply be explicit about the nodes being referred to by >> using @itemid; your example would be simpler for most webmasters to follow, >> which is why I added the "must not" bit on the simultaneous use of >> @itemprop and @itemprop-reverse, but I'm not sure that this is, in fact, >> strictly required. >> >> I just never occurred to me, that if the values 'member' and 'memberOf' >> exist that one could express a reverse relation this way: >> <div itemprop-reverse="memberOf" itemprop="member" itemscope itemtype=" >> http://schema.org/OrganizationRole"> >> >> Do I understand it right this can only be done in case a property and >> it's opposite exist? >> >> >> This follows from RDFa, where you would write: >> >> <div rev="memberOf" rel="member" >> typeOf="schema:OrganizationRole">...</div> >> >> As I understand it, @itemprop-reverse is intended to give Microdata the >> same capability, which it seems that it does, although it may be forbidden >> by the HTML5 content model, or may achieve different results depending on >> the definition of the hypothetical element.reverseProperties. >> >> Gregg >> >> 2014-08-03 16:46 GMT+02:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>: >> >>> On Aug 3, 2014, at 4:45 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> The wording seems pretty clear: >>> >>> [[[ >>> The new attribute @itemprop-reverse will be equivalent to the existing >>> @itemprop, except for the fact that the subject and the object of the >>> statement are swapped. >>> ]]] >>> This makes @itemprop-reverse behave just like @rev in RDFa. >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>> Dan Brinkley, 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 22:16:49 UTC