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

>
> " 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?"


 I'm not for that at all. It's easy to say "just use RDFa (or JSON-LD)" for
this, but that doesn't imply:

a] That person understands RDFa already.

Personally I tried RDFa six years ago, failed miserably and turned to
microdata. Which was easier to understand when starting out. And by now,
I've 'sort of' got my head wrapped around it and am stumbling back into
RDFa because of it, together with the ton of mistakes that come with it.
But more importantly, it's costing me bucketloads of my free time to learn
it all. Something I don't think can nor should be expected from everybody.

If somebody started out learning microdata and has the audacity to become
any good at it, then that person shouldn't have to discover that they need
learn a different syntax to be able to take the extra step when of running
into one of those 1 in a 1000 situations. I think that's too much to ask.
Especially if adding one attribute to microdata can resolve it

b] Website(s) being worked on can not "simply" be rewritten to accommodate
RDFa. This is simply not financially feasible for most publishers. And
while mixing of RDFa and microdata is possible, it is tricky business and
if there are any errors you find yourself in a situations that's nearly
impossible to debug. Which also leads to substantial extra costs. Something
I simply think isn't justifiable, if all it costs is an extra attribute for
microdata.

"Reverse properties are not exactly the simplest thing as this thread has
> shown."


Nope, there not 'easy'. And sure, I've asked plenty of questions and
unfortunately I ask for a lot of input of the folks here, but that's
because there are so little resources available to learn this type of
stuff. Especially for the everyday developer who is looking for info that
goes beyond examples on schema.org or any of the sponsor's sites. And as
long as that info isn't abundantly available it will stay too complex for
most. Maybe the focus therefore should be more on educating folks as
opposed to deciding something is too complex before ever giving them a
chance to properly learn it.



2014-08-04 23:16 GMT+02:00 ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.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'
>
>
>