Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for

On 30 April 2014 16:35,
<> wrote:
> Hi Jason:
> I could live with having this at the position of, and maybe gradually expanding the domain of additionalProperty to relevant other types on demand. Personally I think that having a generic extension mechanism at the level of is a bit more appealing, but I would not have a problem with starting at a deeper branch and then seing how it develops in the wild.
> Dan, Guha - do you have any opinion on this?

I haven't had a chance to have a good look at the new proposals (hello
from an airport...), but when we discussed this during the original
good relations integration, it felt too 'black box', and that treating
propertyy-like-things as properties rather than reifying them might
work better. On that front I wonder whether using JSON-LD could give
more syntactic options than Microdata?

<div itemtype="">
  <img itemprop="image" src="camera123.jpg" />
  <span itemprop="name">Digital Camera 123</span>
  <div itemprop="additionalProperty" itemscope
 <span itemprop="name">Operating Voltage</span>
 <span itemprop="minValue">100</span>-
 <span itemprop="maxValue">250</span>
 <meta itemprop="unitCode" content="VLT">volts
</div> from


{ "@context": "",
  "@type": "Product",
  "image": "camera123.jpg",
  "name": "Digital Camera 123",
  "OperatingVoltage": { "minValue": "100", "maxValue": "250", "unitCode": VLT" }

vs your

{ "@context": "",
  "@type": "Product",
  "image": "camera123.jpg",
  "name": "Digital Camera 123",
  "additionalProperty": { "name": "Operating Voltage", "minValue":
"100", "maxValue": "250", "unitCode": VLT" }

Is (a) really so much easier?


Received on Thursday, 1 May 2014 00:01:22 UTC