On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "If someone can explain to me what the driving motivator is for taking
>> this metaphysical stance is"
>
>
> uh, in my case it has absolutely nothing to do with metaphysical anything.
> I write markup, and a lots of it. I look at what I need to disambiguate and
> seek for solutions which help me do so. The easier and more obvious those
> solutions are, the the bigger the chance is I'll apply them.
>
> If the MTE route means it makes my life, and that of any other who has to
> deal with marking up pages, easier, than I'm a happy camper. Do I worry if
> it makes the work of those who have to extract that data fractionally more
> difficult? Nope not a bit.
>
Jarno -
I think I understand what your concerns are now, so with luck I might be
able to explain things better.
Under the mix-in scheme, the page markup would look like:
<div itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"
itemtype="http://schema.org/FictionalThing" ...>
...
</div>
Under the alternative I suggested, the page markup would look like:
<div itemtype="http://schema.org/Fictional(Person)" ...>
...
</div>
The latter markup does not appear more complicated than the former, and has
the advantage of not requiring making massive changes to the core of
schema.org just to make extracting data *possible*!
Under the first scheme, an application that knows about schema:Person but
does not know about the new schema:FictionalThing *will* think it's looking
at a description of a real Person.
There will have to be a new mechanisms devised to allow webmasters to say
that something is not a FictionalThing. Then someone will have to explain
it to them.
Under the second scheme, an application that knows about Person, but does
not know about Fictional(Person) will see an unrecognized type.
Does this make more sense?
Simon