- From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:43:00 +0100
- To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
- Cc: Tyler Shuster <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com>, SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFQgrbZds31caH2Mi=a-XwT1eVc=TnKoQnGCde_k7YV+ieeu7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Somebody asked me yesterday why itemtype="http://schema.org/Product http://schema.org/Service"> has to be marked up this way just to be able to add an offer/Offer. He proposed to mark it up like itemtype=" http://schema.org/Offer http://schema.org/Service">. Adding the Offer as a second type of Service and thus skipping Product all together. In all honesty I couldn't come up with a reason why this would be a wrong notation. So I was curious, does anybody think this is valid markup and if not, why not? On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote: > > Hi Tyler: > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Tyler Shuster > <tyler.herrshuster@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dan, > > > > Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense. According to the whatwg > > spec, "The item types of an item are the tokens obtained by splitting the > > element's itemtype attribute's value on spaces. If the itemtype attribute is > > missing or parsing it in this way finds no tokens, the item is said to have > > no item types." > > > > Is there anything keeping me from changing your fourth line to: <div > > itemprop="itemOffered" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product > > http://schema.org/Service">? While I understand that "Product" can also > > refer to a service, I don't find it as semantic. > > That would be perfectly valid, yep. > > I think Martin gave the best description of the whitespace-delimited > itemtype attribute vs. use of the additionalType property at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Oct/0114.html - > to summarize crudely, you can mix types in the itemtype attribute if > they all come from the same vocabulary, while additionalType lets you > pull in types from other vocabularies. > > For example, you could use additionalType to reference a > ProductOntology type for computer repair services in your markup: > something like http://www.productontology.org/id/Computer_repair > > I suppose you could use itemtype="Product Service" _and_ > additionalType="http://www.productontology.org/id/Computer_repair" if > you wanted to use be as specific as possible within schema.org vocab > for those processors that might be limited to only understanding > schema.org, for whatever reason, while adding precision for those > processors that also understand ProductOntology or other > vocabularies... > > Dan >
Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 16:43:30 UTC