- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:28:32 +0200
- To: Stefan G�tz <res-vocabs@untief.org>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi, I think that is a remainder from the broadening of the property from the medical ___domain to Thing in the context of the integration of GoodRelations. We could remove this particular one. However, as for the general case, I think it can be a good practice in schema.org to include more specific types in the ___domain or range specification, even if they are formally redundant when the ___domain or range is Thing or something equally broad, because this pattern may point developers to popular, more specific types. Martin On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:49, Stefan G�tz <res-vocabs@untief.org> wrote: > The 'category' property [1] expects one of these types: > > - PhysicalActivityCategory > - Text > - Thing > > Why is it that it explicitly lists PhysicalActivityCategory in addition to Thing? > > In the docs [2] it says: > > > In addition, whenever an expected type is specified, it is also fine > > to embed an item that is a child type of the expected type. > > As PhysicalActivityCategory is a child type of Thing, wouldn�t it be sufficient to list Thing? > > > Stefan > > > [1] http://schema.org/category > [2] http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#schemaorg_expected > >
Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 12:28:57 UTC