- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:48:46 +0100
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- CC: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 01/08/2014 08:01 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Dear Jarno, Karen, all: > > I think I did not say this explicit: From a conceptual level, I strongly recommend to use a "multi-type" approach that combines two or more schema.org types for such cases. Unfortunately, the current support at the search engine level for multi-typed entities is not flawless. > > What this means is that: > > 1. The given examples and direction are generally correct. > 2. They may not work immediately in current client projects. > 3. Google and the other sponsors of schema.org should make fixing support for multi-typed entities in Microdata, RDFa, and JSON-LD a priority, both in validators and operational systems. > 4. We should rather wait for #3 instead of blowing up schema.org with conceptual elements for a tentative fix. After all, the cost of deprecating or changing elements in schema.org is high in terms of confusion. How can we contribute to #3? Maybe we could collaboratively create a page on our wiki listing very particular examples with. * markup in JSON-LD, RDFa and Microdata * comments on our motivation and expectations in using those particular structures * matrix with ranking of current support among tools which try to support schema.org Having that could make process of fixing those bugs more straight forward for people developing those tools!
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 09:48:28 UTC