Re: ItemList

On 05/14/2014 10:53 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:14:14PM +0200, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:26 PM, Jason Douglas wrote:
>>> Those are only there because it inherits from CreativeWork.  If people want to
>>> use ItemList for all ordered lists, than we need to move that inheritance down
>>> the chain, which is what Justin is proposing.  So only EditorialItemList would
>>> inherit CreativeWork (and ItemList), while ItemList would not.
>>
>> No, that's not true (even though the way schema.org is rendered
>> suggests that it is the case). You can use any property, not just the
>> ones whose domain is that specific class (or a super-class thereof).
>
> Hmm. That assertion appears to be at odds with
> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html which states:
>
> """
> 2. We have a set of properties
>   1. each property may have one or more types as its domains. The property
>      may be used for instances of any of these types.
>   2. each property may have one or more types as its ranges. The value(s) of
>      the property should be instances of at least one of these types.
> """
>
> In addition, under "Conformance" on the same page is the opening
> statement: "While we would like all the markup we get to follow the
> schema, in practice, we expect a lot of data that does not."
>
> Those statements in the official schema.org docs suggest that the
> domainIncludes statements for properties are, in fact, meaningful and
> prescriptive. I do not think we should interpret statements that
> "schema.org processors will try to do the best they can with what
> they're given" as carte blanche to attach properties to any types we
> like.
>
[...]

Well, maybe.  However this is mostly reading tea leaves.  I know of no 
definitive statement of how schema.org is supposed to work.   I asked awhile 
ago, and was promised something soon, but nothing has shown up.   I then sent 
in a proposal, but there was no response to it.


peter

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 19:52:43 UTC