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

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