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

The proposal, which is the result of quite some debate, brings a feature to Microdata that all other syntaxes for schema.org have. Referring developers to RDFa for such cases does not help and is, IMO, an attempt to market RDFa over Microdata. Developers who are otherwise happy with Microdata and fluent in it and who might have a huge library of templates in Microdata should not be forced to upgrade all previous works and skills when they encounter that they need inverse properties.

Also, it cannot be assumed that big and small clients will process markup in RDFa and Microdata equally well. If a developer has a preference for Microdata because his or her target consumers understand that syntax better, they should be able to do so.

Let's not reopen syntax wars just because an idea that comes from the RDFa community might be added to Microdata.

Martin




On 04 Aug 2014, at 23:16, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> 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 22:18:40 UTC