W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2014

Re: ItemList

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 00:37:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jeVhAo9mVYRtH+BFtUtLX+Txz0AisT4B5Yz_Tmqbdm-ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:

>  On 13 May 2014, at 22:02, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
> (See also RDF lists, available through @inlist in RDFa, or @list in
> JSON-LD. These should be judiciously used, when the order is intrinsic and
> meaningful in itself.)
> A useful approach for RDFa & JSON-LD but not much help for those applying
> Microdata, RDFa Lite, or maybe even harvesting the data into raw RDF.
>  I believe, to not force a format change (Microdata to say RDFa) to
> enable a sizeable community to use this, we need to define properties to
> describe ordering - in the same way that the additionalType property on
> Thing is there for the Microdata folks to do something that RDFa can do
> natively.

I only mentioned RDF lists for reference, in case someone new to the scene
didn't know about that established construct. (Not sure what you mean about
raw RDF though – that construct is for RDF in general.)

(And I know schema.org usage is effectively locked to a subset of these
general mechanisms. Of course, it's still wise, when doing new designs, to
seek alignment with existing shapes of expression. But I'm not overly
concerned here; I think these shapes are known.)


>  ~Richard.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 22:38:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:31 UTC