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

I wasn't disagreeing with you Thad! :) I agree we're lacking good
documentation, and as I said in a previous email, I was wondering if we
could first lower the importance of additionalType which seems to cause
confusion, along with some documentation on how to assert multiple types on
schema.org.

Steph.


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/>
>



-- 
Steph.