- From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:41:32 -0600
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAChbWaN23eko07EU6=af0L-MdqPi58eQTqoHsUA8dUi2f2OLTA@mail.gmail.com>
Yeah, I know Steph. Perhaps the good first step is lowering the importance of additionalType... probably need a footnote in it's description to say... "uh...you probably are really wanting to go here and use THIS to say it's more than 1 type, I bet ?" would also be helpful. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote: > 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. > -- -Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 02:42:00 UTC