On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org < martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: Even if there were some abstract commonalities between the two, we should > keep in mind that schema.org is mostly a vocabulary for publishers, not > for data consumers. This means that our choices of names for conceptual > elements and conceptual structures should be centered on Web developer > needs. > > I doubt that an average developer will find it natural to use > http://schema.org/Role to express a non-standard product property. > I strongly agree; you picked up one a point I was trying to make. I would go further and posit that using http://schema.org/Role directly may be unnatural in other situations. Where I see the analogies with the generic property proposal is in the meta-property "position" used in the Joe Montana example. If it were possible to define new binary properties as something that would effectively be templates for Roles with certain values already bound, it would make using such properties easier than having to do the whole rig-ma-role each time. The idea was these definitions could be handled using the script embedding style, for precisely the reasons you mention. I did not work through Role in microdata would look like in as much detail, because my eyeballs melted.
Received on Sunday, 11 May 2014 01:41:23 UTC