W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Inverse Properties in Microdata:, was Re: schema.org update, v1.8: added WebSite type; broadened isPartOf to relate CreativeWorks

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:16:34 +0200
Message-ID: <53DFF832.9040706@wwelves.org>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 08/04/2014 07:41 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2014 at 09:10, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> 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.
> May I ask why? I thought the main feature of Microdata was its simplicity. Reverse properties are not exactly the simplest thing as this thread has shown. So why add them to Microdata? Why can't we simply recommend people to use RDFa for such "advanced" use cases? Do we want to evolve both formats in the future?
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against adding this feature to Microdata at all. I'm just curious to understand the motivation and reasoning behind this effort.
+1 for this **simple** idea of recommending RDFa for cases where
Microdata runs short
it also reminds me of:
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/uber-comparison-rdfa-md-uf/ and previous
mentions here of for example limitations in Microdata when it comes to
'vocabulary mashups'
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 21:18:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:34 UTC