I like this direction very much - much more in line with what Richard was suggesting I think. While the efforts to make Series more generically-useful were noble, I think that offloading more specific properties to more specific Series sub-types is more workable. +1 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > > > On 19 November 2014 20:02, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Last paragraph description quibble: >> >> "It is common for properties applicable to an item from the series to be >> usefully applied to the containing group. Schema.org attempts to anticipate >> some of these cases, but publishers should be free to apply properties of >> the series items to the series as a whole wherever they seem appropriate." >> >> Hmm... on the last paragraph in the description....when we say "item" and >> "series items"...can we instead rephrase with "part(s)", in keeping with >> convention of Series hasPart/isPartOf ? >> > > Good point. We now have "but publishers should be free to apply > properties of the series parts to the series as a whole wherever they seem > appropriate." - I hope this is enough to reinforce the part/whole thinking. > > http://sdo-venkman.appspot.com/Series > > cheers, > > Dan > > >
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 22:29:33 UTC