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

As for additional types:
I think the conceptual position of the property is fine, and relocating it for reasons of ergonomics can cause additional confusion. I would recommend to add a note to the definition of additionalType:

"More information on the multi-typed entities in schema.org is available here" 

and link that to a document on the schema.org site that summarizes what has already been said and is consensus on this mailing list.

The issue of multi-typed entities is not trivial, in particularly since it touches both conceptual aspects and aspects of the syntax used, and the handling of multiple types varies by syntax, and, in the case of Microdata, on whether the types come from one or multiple vocabularies.

Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Martin Hepp

-------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/




On 25 Feb 2014, at 03:41, 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
> Thad on LinkedIn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steph.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry
> Thad on LinkedIn
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steph.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry
> Thad on LinkedIn

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 10:13:39 UTC