- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:36:04 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- CC: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 9/30/13 12:27 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > > It is purely another way of writing rdf:type. Any pair of things that > are related by rdf:type could equally well be described as being > related by schema:additionalType. Thanks, Dan. I didn't realize that additionalType had the sense of rdf:type. Then I second Richard Wallis' question on how the previous discussion of declaring multiple itemtypes relates to additionalType. Or are we providing equal but varied approaches that essentially have the same result? Could that lead to confusion? kc In the sense that RDF's > types/classes are useful for categorisation, then so is this > mechanism. But maybe there's a subtle difference in how you're using > the word 'categorize' that I'm not picking up on? > > Dan > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 21:36:33 UTC