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

RDFa Core 1.1 is a "W3C Recommendation", whereas Microdata is a "W3C Working Group Note".

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/

The key difference is obvious, right?

On Feb 24, 2014, at 9:32 PM, "Thad Guidry" <thadguidry@gmail.com<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:scorlosquet@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://schema.org> could explain this a bit more 'readable'.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com<mailto: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/>