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

I disagree and do not think email documentation is the way forward for us.

We should not have to TELL Jarno this... we should have decent enough
documentation / annotations / explains within Schema.org that make this
clearer than mud.

We can do better.  I am sure of it..... thinking...



On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
<scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>wrote:
>
>> And which also is confusing in the case of multiple type entities in
>> Microdata.
>>
>> I can imagine folks will write something like this:
>>
>> <span itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
>>     <link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://schema.org/Service">
>>     ...
>> </span>
>>
>> as opposed to:
>>
>> <span itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product
>> http://schema.org/Service">
>>     ...
>> </span>
>>
>> Or is this something that should be accepted as correct markup?
>>
>
> They are both correct (if you assume that additionalType is the same as a
> regular type and your tooling can merge them). To make it easier to
> remember that @href and @src should only include one value, remember that
> these attributes are HTML attributes, and therefore any syntax built on top
> has to follow the HTML rules for these attributes. If you think that these
> attributes have to be interpreted and rendered in a browser, you definitely
> cannot include multiple URIs or things will break (broken links and broken
> images).
>
> Steph.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:39 AM, 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'.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>



-- 
-Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 02:31:39 UTC