On May 13, 2014, at 2:37 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.
Microdata does support Lists, but we would need to update the schema.org Registry to indicate that schema:itemMember is sequenced (multipleValues: ordered). Of course, the registry is woefully out of date. I suggested a while ago that we might want to re-address Microdata to RDF and have it use the JSON-LD context associated with the vocabulary for this purpose instead. That way, if schema publishes a context that says that itemMember has @container: @list, a processor would automatically pick that up.
IMO, RDFa Lite has served it's purpose, and if concepts such as @rev and @inlist are useful, examples should use it.
> 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.
Like I said, there is a way, we either need to update the Microdata Registry, or better yet, rev the Note on it and change to use the JSON-LD context, which should be more up-to-date.
Gregg
> ~Richard.