Now I don't really know if it's been discussed in the past already or that it would break cardinal rules but wouldn't it be easiest if @itemtype and @typeof would be brought in line with each other and have @itemtype also accept multiple types from multi vocabularies? That would certainly help to prevent this type of questions. (well, at least from me). On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is probably going to be a FAQ question over and over and over...so.. >> >> We should probably annotate when something takes multiple values within >> the schema somehow... hmmm.... something like... "only single value >> allowed" or "doesn't support multiple values". >> >> Or is there already a hard and fast rule here in the schema... that only >> Types can take multiple values ? >> > > The way I understood Jano's question, he was asking at the format level > (in HTML). There is no rule at the schema level that prevents you from > asserting multiple types or additionalType, but some properties might > have a cardinality in the future. It's not present in the current schema > [1] though. > > My main point though is that we shouldn't confuse the schema and the > multiple serializations which each have their own implementation details. > For example, @itemtype allows multiple type from the same vocabulary, > @typeof allows multiple types from multi vocabularies, @resource, @href and > @src only allow one URI as value of a property... these are specific to the > HTML encoding. In Turtle for example, you can assert multiple values > separated with a comma without repeating the property: > [ a schema:PlaceOfWorship; > schema:name "Songyue_Pagoda"; > schema:sameAs <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songyue_Pagoda>, > <http://www.freebase.com/m/03bz2xf>] > > The constraints of the schema (e.g. cardinality) are not the same as the > rules used to write microdata, RDFa or JSON-LD. > > Steph. > > [1] http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html > > >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> -- >> -Thad >> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> >> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/> >> > > > > -- > Steph. >
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 02:07:29 UTC