Re: Roles vs. Property- Value-Pairs / was Re: Finalizing "Roles" design

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM, <> wrote:

Even if there were some abstract commonalities between the two, we should
> keep in mind that 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
> 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 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