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

"We should not have to TELL Jarno this"...

Probable, but for now I'm very happy you lot do.   :)


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 03:07:37 UTC