- From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:24:03 +0200
- To: "Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, Juraj Kabát <kabat.juraj@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADK2AU1Lcn6W4DXAYCkX3NE-43-67=4HWPoOaqW6Td=zi_Vk8A@mail.gmail.com>
"What about using ‘about’ or ‘mentions’?" That is part of an ongoing discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0091.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Mar/0067.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Apr/0255.html But also touches the subject of adding a 'mainEntity' property: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014May/0248.html Now there is a proposal for adding @itemprop-reverse to microdata, but even if it gets accepted I still think adding 'hasPart' as an inverse property for 'isPartOf' will greatly simplify things. And I'd love for the discussion about 'mainEntity'/'mainContentOfPage' to pick up again as well, as they're more or less tied together. 2014-08-01 1:00 GMT+02:00 Jason Johnson (BING) <jasjoh@microsoft.com>: > What about using ‘about’ or ‘mentions’? > > > > <body itemid="#WebPage" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/CollectionPage"> > <div class="products" itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/ItemList"> > > <meta content="Unordered" itemprop="itemListOrder"> > <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage"> > > <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope > itemprop="itemListElement"> > <img src="[url]" itemprop="image"> > <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span > itemprop="name">[name]</span></a> > <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope > itemprop="offers"> > <span itemprop="price">[price]</span> > </span> > </div> > > <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope > itemprop="itemListElement"> > <img src="[url]" itemprop="image"> > <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span > itemprop="name">[name]</span></a> > <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope > itemprop="offers"> > <span itemprop="price">[price]</span> > </span> > </div> > > </div> > </body> > > > > *From:* Jarno van Driel [mailto:jarnovandriel@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:03 PM > *To:* Jason Johnson (BING) > > *Subject:* Re: schema.org update, v1.8: added WebSite type; broadened > isPartOf to relate CreativeWorks > > > > "I notice you don’t have an itemprop attribute in your first <div> > element. Was that intentional?" > > > > That would only have been possible if 'hasPart' (which isn't part of the > specification) could have been used (or itemprop-reverse="isPartOf"). > > > > Because there is no inverse property of 'isPartOf', nor a reverse > mechanism for microdata, Juraj is bound to chain the entities together by > making use of <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="[itemid-value]">. > > > > A cumbersome method, that now can be applied where it first couldn't. All > be it but one that can be improved still. > > > > 2014-07-31 17:52 GMT+02:00 Jason Johnson (BING) <jasjoh@microsoft.com>: > > I notice you don’t have an itemprop attribute in your first <div> > element. Was that intentional? > > > > *From:* Juraj Kabát [mailto:kabat.juraj@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:08 AM > *To:* public-vocabs@w3.org > *Cc:* W3C Web Schemas Task Force > *Subject:* Re: schema.org update, v1.8: added WebSite type; broadened > isPartOf to relate CreativeWorks > > > > When Ill try to add isPartOf property to ItemList, Im getting this warning: > > WARNING: isPartOf field not specified in http://schema.org/ItemList > > Example snippet: > <body itemid="#WebPage" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/CollectionPage"> > <div class="products" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ItemList"> > <meta content="Unordered" itemprop="itemListOrder"> > <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage"> > > <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope > itemprop="itemListElement"> > <img src="[url]" itemprop="image"> > <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span > itemprop="name">[name]</span></a> > <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope > itemprop="offers"> > <span itemprop="price">[price]</span> > </span> > </div> > > <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope > itemprop="itemListElement"> > <img src="[url]" itemprop="image"> > <a href="[url]" itemprop="url"><span > itemprop="name">[name]</span></a> > <span itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemscope > itemprop="offers"> > <span itemprop="price">[price]</span> > </span> > </div> > > </div> > </body> > > But when Ill add isPartOf property to each ItemListElement, everything > works like expected. > What am I missing here? ItemList extends CreativeWork as well... > > Why can't I chain whole ItemList to parent but instead of that I have to > repeat myself for every element in list? > > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Personally I most of all like the addition of WebSite (and it's creative > example) as well as the reworked 'isPartOf' most and I've already started > to implementing them. :-) > > > > But I would have been an even happier camper if 'hasPart' would have been > introduced as well. And even though chaining WebSite > WebPage > > WebPageElements > CreativeWork now can be achieved, without abusing > 'mentions' for this, it unfortunately is quite cumbersome in microdata > because one has to use itemid quite a lot, eg: > > > > <body itemid="#WebPage" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"> > > <nav itemid="#SiteNavigationElement" itemscope itemtype=" > http://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement"> > > <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage"> > > <ul> > > <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage" itemid="#WebPage-1"> > > <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#SiteNavigationElement"> > > <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]"> > > <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span> > > </a> > > <ul> > > <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"> > > <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage-1" /> > > <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]"> > > <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span> > > </a> > > </li> > > <li itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"> > > <link itemprop="isPartOf" href="#WebPage-1" /> > > <a itemprop="url" href="[some-page-url]"> > > <span itemprop="name">[some-page-name]</span> > > </a> > > </li> > > </ul> > > </li> > > </ul> > > </nav> > > </body> > > > > I'm still quite pleased with the update is as though. > > > > > > > > > > 2014-07-28 17:43 GMT+02:00 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>: > > > > previous update (1.7), > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jul/0012.html > > A small schema.org update just went live: > > 1. We add a new CreativeWork type, "WebSite" > > http://schema.org/WebSite > > "A WebSite is a set of related web pages and other items typically > served from a single web domain and accessible via URLs." > > The example shows the use of this with SearchAction. > > 2. We adopt the proposal made by the bibextend group and other > collaborators, to broaden isPartOf. It now relates any CreativeWork to > any other CreativeWork > > http://schema.org/isPartOf > > see also > https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Periodicals,_Articles_and_Multi-volume_Works > > 3. Potential Actions documentation > > The previously PDF-only Potential Actions document is now on the site in > HTML: > > http://schema.org/docs/actions.html > > 4. Adopted some markup fixes from Stephane Corlosquet (thanks!) > > https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/71 > > 5. Improved consistency of encoding / associatedMedia description > (thanks Dan Scott!) > > https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/35 > > 6. Updated some out-of-date sections of the FAQ: it now mentions > Yandex appropriately, acknowledges that there's life beyond Microdata > (i.e. RDFa, JSON-LD), and doesn't talk about "version 0.9 draft" any > more. > > https://github.com/rvguha/schemaorg/pull/69 > > Thanks all :) > > Dan > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 23:24:30 UTC