Re: ItemList proposal

I think we discussed this back then in the initial ItemList thread on this list - and the motivation on why to have indirection in here is that ordering and sequence information are typically context-bound and not absolute properties of the underlying entities. 

Martin



On 06 Sep 2014, at 21:35, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> 
> On 6 Sep 2014 20:21, "Vicki Tardif Holland" <vtardif@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Any feedback on my proposal for ListItem only being used as a Multi-Type Entity and dropping the 'item' property on ListItem? (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Aug/0112.html)
> >
> >
> > Forgive me; I knew there was something in this area I was missing.
> >
> > I like the idea. There are many places we should encourage using multiple types.
> 
> I like multiple types. I believe in this case the indirection has value since the ListItem can carry ordering information without it being merged in with other different ordering properties being used with the same real world item. These issues were responsible for RSS1's awkward use of an rdf sequence structure BTW.
> 
> That said I'm on mobile phone now So verifying the concern is tricky
> 
> Dan
> 
> The example I keep coming back to is I may have an Offer to sell a book, at which point, I may want to use both the Book type and the Product type on the same entity. Authors don't seem to use multiple types much, but I wonder if that is because we don't give them clear examples of how and when to do that.
> >
> > Perhaps this is a good time to force multiple types on the same entity.
> >
> > - Vicki
> >
> > Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com 
> >  
>

Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 11:58:44 UTC