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: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:52:21 +0200
To: "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <09cc01cfb08a$931fbd60$b95f3820$@gmx.net>
On 5 Aug 2014 at 00:18, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
> The proposal, which is the result of quite some debate, brings a
> feature to Microdata that all other syntaxes for schema.org have.

Right.


> Referring developers to RDFa for such cases does not help and is,
> IMO, an attempt to market RDFa over Microdata. Developers who are

It is also a way to differentiate and to keep Microdata simple.


> 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.

Fair enough. Nevertheless newcomers do struggle *a lot* when they have to decide which syntax to choose. Having some clear differences between the two (more features, thus more compex) would help in that regard IMO.


> 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.

This point is moot as every Microdata client will have to be updated to support reverse properties. The problem is that you won't know whether the other side understands it or not. So, actually, I think it's an argument against doing it.


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

Shooting down every well-intended discussion with such an argument isn't productive either and doesn't help us to move this space forward. Let's try to have an objective discussion and make the best possible decision.. in most cases means that not everyone will be 100% happy - so be it.



Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 08:52:52 UTC

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