Re: Multiple types from different vocabularies (ACTION-7)

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>wrote:

>
>
> 4. A global property. This could be rdf:type or we could recommend that the
> W3C define an equivalent property but with a more approachable URI, such as
> 'http://w3.org/ns/global/type'. In your example, that would mean:
>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
>  <link itemprop="http://w3.org/ns/global/type"
>       href="http://www.productontology.org/id/Hammer" />
>  <link itemprop="http://w3.org/ns/global/type"
>        href="http://example.org/my_ontology.owl#Tool" />
> <!-- other schema.org properties go in here -->
> </div>
>
> This has the advantage of having a consistent way of adding types, but
> makes the markup more cluttered than the previous solutions. However easy
> you make the URL for the type, it's always going to be something that people
> have to work to remember; given it'll be cut-and-pasted anyway, you might as
> well use the existing rdf:type rather than inventing something with an
> equivalent semantics.


I like this suggestion a lot. The only thing I disagree with is the
reasoning about the URL. For example, something like
http://www.org/typewould be easy to remember, and it has the advantage
that
www.org is owned by the W3C.

If the W3C were open to using that ___domain for simple glue terms for
microdata vocabularies, then I think it would be pretty intuitive for
users... the global properties for the web being at www makes intuitive
sense.

-Lin