- From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 04:07:09 +0100
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Cc: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, "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: <CAFQgrbYez3rk=j5+fNgG3P=0j_mn6N+JR9sRYKUFCAB6texKmA@mail.gmail.com>
"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