Re: Another example of Wikidata + schema.org for type enumerations

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:

> Well for me the confusement started with a remark of GuHa: "additionalType
> == typeOf" (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/0136.html).
>
> Which got me to think that in case of additionalType one could write:
> <link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://schema.org/Type1
> http://schema.org/Type2">
>
> Although Stéphane's remark: "href can only include one single URI" and
> Martin's remark: "the type in here is a property value" do make perfect
> sense from an HTML perspective.
>
> Now I looked at Dan's link to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#A-href and
> I've also looked it up in the Microdata specifications (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-microdata-20131029/#values) and one could
> argue that they do indicate a single URI. All be a bit technocratic. So IMO
> I think it would be a good thing it schema.org could explain this a bit
> more 'readable'.
>

I hope my previous email shed more light on this.

It's unfortunate that additionalType has such prominence on the
schema.orgdefinition, I think that's what's confusing people. It's the
first property
for all types due to the alphabetical order and it belongs to Thing, while
strictly speaking, it doesn't belong to the schema. You don't need
additionalType in many cases, because you can just add as many types as you
need in @typeof and @itemtype (with the limitation that all have to belong
to the same vocab  for @itemtype). additionalType is a property that was
introduced to work around a limitation of microdata, but now I'm wondering
if it's causing more confusion than anything else. Could we bury it further
down in the list? Looking at the discussions that led to the introduction
of additionalType to schema.org [1], it was essentially to support the Good
Relations use case in microdata where you have a main product type from the
GR namespace and a more specific type from another namespace such as
http://www.productontology.org/id/Laser_printer. The microdata syntax
doesn't allow this natively (while RDFa does).

Steph.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Jun/0031.html


>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:24 AM, 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 ?
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> --
>> -Thad
>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>>
>
>


-- 
Steph.